[websec] draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-20 feedback
Julian Reschke <jreschke@adobe.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 08:54 UTC
Return-Path: <jreschke@adobe.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 A22FC1A070B for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 fVrLBJ3aSOyC for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0203.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.203]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C400B1A0BEA for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.160] (93.217.95.201) by BL2PR02MB482.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.141.95.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:54:28 +0000
Message-ID: <53FC4B34.8050604@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:54:12 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <jreschke@adobe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: websec <websec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [93.217.95.201]
X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPR01CA008.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.255.167.153) To BL2PR02MB482.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.141.95.144)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 03152A99FF
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6049001)(6009001)(51704005)(189002)(199003)(64706001)(102836001)(76482001)(87976001)(230783001)(92566001)(4396001)(92726001)(85306004)(101416001)(47776003)(77982001)(81342001)(46102001)(33656002)(21056001)(90102001)(117156001)(83072002)(85852003)(66066001)(79102001)(65956001)(80022001)(20776003)(86362001)(95666004)(99396002)(107886001)(107046002)(105586002)(36756003)(50466002)(23676002)(83322001)(80316001)(77096002)(106356001)(65806001)(74662001)(64126003)(65816999)(81542001)(42186005)(229853001)(83506001)(87266999)(74502001)(54356999)(50986999)(110136001)(31966008); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR02MB482; H:[192.168.2.160]; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/JHcDd4mSDVORKne5StsxQAYQJvA
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:57:59 -0700
Subject: [websec] draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-20 feedback
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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:54:34 -0000
Hi there. Some more quick feedback, somewhat unstructured... Throughout: please say "header field" rather than "header". > The "Public-Key-Pins" and "Public-Key-Pins-Report-Only" header > fields, also referred to within this specification as the PKP and > PKP-RO header fields, respectively, are new response headers defined > in this specification. They are used by a server to indicate that a s/server/origin server/ maybe? > Figure 1 describes the syntax (Augmented Backus-Naur Form) of the > header fields, using the grammar defined in [RFC5234] and the rules > defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC7230]. The field values of both header > fields conform to the same rules. > > Public-Key-Directives = [ directive ] *( OWS ";" OWS [ directive ] ) > > directive = simple-directive > / pin-directive > > simple-directive = directive-name [ "=" directive-value ] > directive-name = token > directive-value = token > / quoted-string > > pin-directive = "pin-" token "=" quoted-string 1) I would recommend not to special-case pin-directive here, as it makes the ABNF ambiguous. Just put the additional requirements into prose. 2) The value of pin-directive ought to allow token syntax as well. (Otherwise a conforming parser will need to special-case their parsing which doesn't make any sense at all). > given header field. Directives are either optional or required, > as stipulated in their definitions. "OPTIONAL or REQUIRED", I assume? > Additional directives extending the semantic functionality of the > header fields can be defined in other specifications. The first such > specification will need to define a reistry for such directives. registry. > According to rule 5, above, the UA MUST ignore pin-directives with Repeats a requirement. Maybe do not use MUST here; instead say "will". > tokens naming hash algorithms it does not recognize. If the set of > remaining effective pin-directives is empty, and if the host is a > Known Pinned Host, the UA MUST cease to consider the host as a Known > Pinned Host (the UA should fail open). The UA should indicate to SHOULD? > UAs SHOULD make their best effort to report Pin Validation failures > to the report-uri, but may fail to report in exceptional conditions. MAY? (in general: try to avoid lowercase RFC2119 terms)
- [websec] draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-20 feedback Julian Reschke
- [websec] draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-20 feedback Julian Reschke