Re: [Webpush] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 00:16 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408621323C8; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ew-B2s2dIbNh; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D15AE1321AC; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 77so11314074itj.1; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qo6uSLbZXqjXdOMcYzPTTzviiK45WYoKeoreptsbOP4=; b=jeix2Z8MmefOoOlF79vvy80j+4j/FDZko4r68ZvbEcu7khYMBJBM7y/S+TKfpqro5+ Gvq07qB1wWFal2H2RMEEBfnUFu6o9p50AUvX2Fz41eqVHwcqZOGjhMM/6QTcNcKzTAvT VxjRmysyaZZSr7e+x58OjhR9/LaEMYQRWzswU1snqXq5DtNHwPvFY5R5tlu9TxCg7y0P aHvEvRj8ZkYtbrJHFgh8/hMutQMJUMVEO7Ja/ApS9OizRRvb7ZNbW2VqrnfeuqkQCsVn kG6nx0i1UnjJOCAG9yU4LM5IvlKI0JT7JuSG3mTOObIpfEU3Oh+gjmy1MKO5kDRXR/Yj ySmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qo6uSLbZXqjXdOMcYzPTTzviiK45WYoKeoreptsbOP4=; b=rGepY5/QaMwGtsEvTMOpScito7R5zsI93J/hKM+l76duMO40NnZhr13zLW/XN5uaC7 WGPp1ZYu64nDVYN8cOBkZl75FYG6akZfNtvDqIV7dQ1lvFEeeiHY3qVJuPbGQIdE4fQs bjSfOB0LuVVyuPkz9g4W+9kbygdGWahEkSOu9TlyCgqP5yx5/MTLAt6DhPd+Z/VHdCw/ FYV3JTkQqzw8Eb6GauNGVCRkaqwO/Yo4BntSJujk2zuatjTpW9IqtiqfPs8bcm9cnNaJ rFXYg131rTQ/Z7xneSieS4up/oQc9k6pN4Z2OdhiBKioGT1IrVoSLEbM7DjlNzVyA7yD RxCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gguVcfc9RNGD5SNOQgRQNwmYximHwamfR0wSZUY+imX9smv8UY pVO5nEIw44k1jL1b+vPAhORoD1OYoQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.107.68 with SMTP id v65mr363063itc.129.1502842587206; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.164.42 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <150281999738.21016.2164260159984776251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <150281999738.21016.2164260159984776251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:16:26 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWoqRd9Y_xeoRh2cXG_GFG617__qeM=8PuLvApO7Vbk4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Tim Chown <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>, draft-ietf-webpush-encryption@ietf.org, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/oM4mElFQBblbV2bWdwmfC3Fe8fk>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of potential IETF work on a web push protocol <webpush.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webpush/>
List-Post: <mailto:webpush@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:16:34 -0000
Hi Warren, I resolved your nits here: https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/pull/19 On 16 August 2017 at 03:59, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote: > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-webpush-encryption/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Firstly, thanks to Tim Chown for his helpful OpsDir review ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-webpush-encryption-08-opsdir-lc-chown-2017-08-01/ > ) and for your response. > > I only have nits on this document: > 1: I reviewed this and draft-ietf-webpush-vapid together. This document uses > title case for "User Agent" (and many other terms), while > draft-ietf-webpush-vapid and RFC8030 uses lower-case. Consistency would be nice > here. > > 2: Section 2: > "In addition to the reasons described in [I-D.ietf-webpush-protocol], this > ensures that the authentication secret is not revealed to unauthorized > entities, which can be used to generate push messages that will be accepted by > the User Agent." -- this is ambiguous / confusing. It is unclear which which is > which. I'd suggest rewording to something like "... to unauthorized entities, > which would allow that entities to generate push messages that would be > accepted by the User Agent as valid" (or similar) > > 3: Section 7. Security Considerations > "In particular, any HTTP header fields are not protected by the content > encoding scheme." -- I think you may mean "In particular, no HTTP header fields > are protected ..." (or similar) > > > _______________________________________________ > Webpush mailing list > Webpush@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
- [Webpush] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Webpush] Warren Kumari's No Objection on dra… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] Warren Kumari's No Objection on dra… Warren Kumari