IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Wish] Authentication for resource url

Matt Ward <mattward@mux.com> Thu, 16 September 2021 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mattward@mux.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 56C513A312D for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mux.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 XBE4Cf2eanKr for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x233.google.com (mail-oi1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::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 8234C3A22C4 for <wish@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x233.google.com with SMTP id j66so10087428oih.12 for <wish@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mux.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b1ym+IIID7nUeRk6RoJ5NSaPftVRuR5nHDu2UsIPh44=; b=VDqFnRBVViAFVhhRATs2UQ1Ox1Wa5Zt9kFYxU12dSck0Umq3ytbYRdgppdHGYoKj+U 3YnW8K05psmGg7gThnKq3X4wGVoFUe0ta0K7UpZcbmS/A/WsdSuqJ2/duPkhqmbFoc3/ rH+LsdYlntPhnCkviVOa/pMt7dt7YgpZjNdUY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b1ym+IIID7nUeRk6RoJ5NSaPftVRuR5nHDu2UsIPh44=; b=rHbjtgWOQjnWAwJm83HEvEELHsJBep2eUnV7splcMG0KWNZg2RBcZ2hqYLEZOVp4+L 83ltRImGj9Ctxrm+nOCzaLEKx6E9kVRz68pCqJM+24cj4R38lbhfUBd9h4zUI02IBNNK HP5J5bZSZlsN5fMLuGjScD4qOvH8sJs9hKP2bbISTkMfHr2zOLMdCCKkLFYaJ4sVuZLE t7xQomteNln48W2WFN7ct9mMpQ6a57b7R1mjzsIoJE2SiwTWZWyOSY0Bn1PII1ZrvmDD AwTHRXh89ZmHrcxL74k1MbV/r6FiMI4Ht9Sd4Zaptdh8r9Bi0XqhJobj5KpfCnIgyXxE chJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531uqU6lqnnH+tCLetI5MiiGx+NWN3e2x8TlF6s5KQj8Q7yWPMfn jF5WBdg3TgMNXdCmXl2PItU4GM7rix8FNCbGC3l/5A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyPD/RL6HFOMJ7EGGdWQOhtr0x6MdZkTfT5bYYdwtbdKGj1zzan1T/diATeFIwk9x9SXs5Q1afgQF0oEVom+Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:57a:: with SMTP id j26mr807193oig.13.1631814576370; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+ag07bjtS1Ucw1BZ5qQ_jJFfXbfQ3-hzDgxfkV1APhV1JZMnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAABnt0M2Vg-9=SwX=O1mFbyYTS4b7ewmevW2qzMf17fsagoc2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07aJKFy2s_UD0L-PaGHNwA9XH6Khz+0tReOMMcweJ0Q0hQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAABnt0MSUuxYK1CvOQUmC-a4b_U9m7YQ+vhXfjaaDxFZE+_JOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07bb5WfoUJRkQt37nYtkmtEi=Kpp44ihVNGRd=OytakADg@mail.gmail.com> <CAABnt0PXKPejtywBDizx_Og0d0qPp6qa6cXXsCjBrbTQHN9pKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMyc9bXUXR5nrxoQsQwDqE46sHWN_8vicG_c53ZruRbC0gfeMw@mail.gmail.com> <877dfk9fil.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CA+ag07ZxJF95xd7y_ToRRNJmbRboRR56t=mnW+nGYFqpAkH61g@mail.gmail.com> <8735q72yo4.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CA+ag07Z6_Nd2VvWG4HyuXK=E3u2xn8a2a_xVCEWk3_yyfQSp3A@mail.gmail.com> <87r1dr89mr.wl-jch@irif.fr> <a12adb1d-da65-8290-7d91-d911aa0aa6cc@nostrum.com> <87ee9qyyum.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bl4uyxr4.wl-jch@irif.fr> <20210915121851.67088a25@lminiero> <HE1PR07MB4441791F1620CB6B6B9C5D8893DB9@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <87y27xd6tl.wl-jch@irif.fr> <bd8bab3f-2bc9-1827-0184-2b5d1a5fb68e@nostrum.com> <CAABnt0MKd-MH1L4V=hVuhYJHHHv-nco98-0pTDzVhS04Wk2o2w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07bzhoFfX4vMxPOtXvNK+f=zirCbDHa13Ucctx0oiMD88Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ag07bzhoFfX4vMxPOtXvNK+f=zirCbDHa13Ucctx0oiMD88Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Ward <mattward@mux.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:49:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAABnt0PzPJiMxUj+yNr29YB8VfS41501B0c4gDZaqzLxh-u=Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, WISH List <wish@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a063b05cc20706c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wish/qiUrzT77PrAZY7K3lBpVT0Oyc_Q>
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: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 17:49:43 -0000

Why must it be mandated?

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:48 AM Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that the spec must mandate authentication to be supported on the
> client side and that its usage is optional. Meaning that all clients must
> implement it, but allow the token to not be set (and therefore the header
> not be sent).
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
> El jue, 16 sept 2021 a las 19:43, Matt Ward (<mattward@mux.com>) escribió:
>
>> I would still reiterate that I strongly recommend that the spec does not
>> prohibit the lack of an Authentication header and therefore in some way
>> permits building an experience really close to that of RTMP such that we do
>> not have to retrain broadcasters. I think keeping things close to RTMP will
>> help this spec see better adoption in the ecosystem. I really do want this
>> spec to succeed and I do believe that keeping the requirements as minimal
>> as possible will help speed up adoption.
>>
>> The question here I think should be, is WHIP as a spec actually
>> incomplete and not independently useful without a specification of
>> authentication? Can (and should) that be covered in optional extensions of
>> the base spec that makes no mention of authentication?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:11 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/15/21 13:36, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>> > if we expect WHIP to run in cleartext
>>>
>>>
>>> We can't. Our charter doesn't let us define WHIP over HTTP. We're only
>>> allowed to define WHIP over HTTPS.
>>>
>>> /a
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wish mailing list
>>> Wish@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish
>>>
>> --
>> Wish mailing list
>> Wish@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish
>>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email