IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Wish] Authentication for resource url

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Sun, 12 September 2021 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEED3A1F64 for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 XeYtIJtqpcfG for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 14:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 1A24A3A1F61 for <wish@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 14:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 18CLo4Hp028233 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 12 Sep 2021 16:50:05 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1631483406; bh=Z8rSPZn3redv4hRbXNdAc62Nx3hj9boJYtv6A9HDqyA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DnojWrwke5VLlKHEwtNaFw+/fqgV+aq4p59cIv/97E/FuUpnfdCMbMMfeN6jtE3D6 tjQurUyN/lZ0RPGiOf4azs4LWm9D8qlQU+XzSovxce1MTIhWtNvyWyUt3S5UwWeDv9 K7l28ortTDe7Po/+/pEEkp00s9JOrP7btP9lXvYk=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48]
To: Matt Ward <mattward@mux.com>
Cc: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>, WISH List <wish@ietf.org>, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
References: <CA+ag07bjtS1Ucw1BZ5qQ_jJFfXbfQ3-hzDgxfkV1APhV1JZMnQ@mail.gmail.com> <87o893vuz4.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CA+ag07Y41bg_K-60=d5yyODj+bN442enQn-Grb-NkX7zQ8vVBQ@mail.gmail.com> <1e55c847-6a6c-5fca-d7c0-cd3a822855a7@nostrum.com> <CA+ag07YZdQooVBLtn=R=Lj0XpojCmVzd51P6=ExFUqwhvqYNdA@mail.gmail.com> <28d39165-3d08-257e-4736-1c8449e99034@nostrum.com> <CAABnt0NxfyTBQmGkh3gU69bf0zDok_pm5+Lun62EABha0gEATQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <66b34dab-7a67-656e-d619-c5109ca99bbb@nostrum.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 16:49:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAABnt0NxfyTBQmGkh3gU69bf0zDok_pm5+Lun62EABha0gEATQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wish/p7pZveoYQ414tPE4Hu_OlTmUVak>
Subject: Re: [Wish] Authentication for resource url
X-BeenThere: wish@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS <wish.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wish>, <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wish/>
List-Post: <mailto:wish@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish>, <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 21:50:15 -0000

On 9/12/2021 2:14 PM, Matt Ward wrote:
> I've proposed an edit in 
> https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/pull/17 
> clarifying that "any HTTP compliant authentication and authorization 
> MAY be implemented" and that RFC6750 is an example.


I understand the motivation, but this doesn't get us to 
interoperability. We need a baseline, mandatory-to-implement 
authentication method for both client and server; otherwise, we'll end 
up in a situation where your client implements mechanism A, my network 
implements mechanism B, and your users can't use my network.

/a

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email