IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] Re-litigating Key-Pinning

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 28 August 2014 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C88D1A0712 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 8jsAz4Z0bdsg for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57A381A0479 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id p9so450368lbv.33 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=07yDD8sysxKLE8o4iSpZZWaZog2w6yrEpXnPSrGwUn0=; b=hWr4BfhngODSWy8iLskPdEnCSDWxCMvVz8M+y32BmzMre11mOHk4jXt/ECUECMhBMg fkBX2xyltMDczuzZiWt0L/V9Dr6/CbhsCZNPCujmJ0p1YrhcPpYHm0CBC/pjmg7yfFuG zEWq+u4deNmsBwxK22uF8F0ApcqvSwa8ZC/XZ1xezLwIjm4ACwDzYGson/h18Xo0QGe6 LCZy5u0trXua7P9JA61VGc286mF6s+ho72QzaxF3/QqnhWCm3zy9oOF38vnFUHMDMjyk Qcj5PZuaUtG4LjAshLvIjEJBy2wx6ZpujDCgZKb+2KOXOLuP48lO3tLrmp8ZS1QI7SoU SOdA==
X-Received: by 10.153.4.39 with SMTP id cb7mr2337307lad.19.1409212881634; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.249.230] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vl4sm4698310lbb.36.2014.08.28.01.01.20 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FEC72A.7010605@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:01:18 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6CA0E2AF-C758-4EFF-9506-E2E545FB4EBA@gmail.com>
References: <6CAA88AE-1A98-4FF1-B994-A43A0AD3930D@gmail.com> <53FEC72A.7010605@greenbytes.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/C7U6AVt4zXjb7ny3iA2bJ1le-2Q
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "<websec@ietf.org>" <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Re-litigating Key-Pinning
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:01:26 -0000

On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> wrote:

> On 2014-08-27 07:44, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> ...
>> Fixing editorial issues like Julians’ comments about references is fine, and could even be done *after* IESG review. ...
>> ...
> 
> FWIW, I believe the ABNF issues (which are *not* editorial) absolutely need to be fixed as well.
> 

Hi, Julian

I don’t want to nit-pick the meaning of the word “editorial”. But anyone who’s read the draft knows what a PKP header looks like. I don’t think there’s any controversy about what is and is not a valid PKP header. So changing the ABNF to reflect this existing understanding, is something that I don’t think requires polling the group.

Cheers

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email