W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10: (with DISCUSS)

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:44:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfcxuDzUCTDPM9E76vXApEhtgoFmTFZyT9+mZFCySH_bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression.all@tools.ietf.org, David <david.black@emc.com>, Black@ietfa.amsl.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
For my part, if it isn't clear what to do with these (set the never-index
bit when making a request where the entity causing the request is a 3rd
party as a stronger defense against CRIME-like attacks), then it really
should be better documented.
I'd be happy to see this recommendation added to either the HTTP2 or HPACK
document and/or discussed more.


On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>

> > David Black, part of the combined OPS/GEN-ART review
> > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg11197.html)
> > mentions:
> >
> > The second major issue looks serious - one of the major motivations
> > for HPACK is to mitigate attacks on DEFLATE (e.g., CRIME) via use of
> > never
> > indexed fields wrt compression.  The absence of a list of header fields
> > that MUST use that never indexed functionality appears to be a serious
> > oversight.
> >
> > Could I ask one of you to place a Discuss to ensure that these concerns
> > are addressed?
> >
> > ====================
> > I haven't had the time to read the draft (shocking I know). So I'm
> > unclear at this point if the feedback is DISCUSS/COMMENT-worthy, but ...
> > I've got a very high respect for David's technical reviews. In many years
> > of review, it's the first time he directly asked me to file a DISCUSS. So
> > I want to go to the bottom of this issue. If this approach is clumsy
> > (yes, I know, the DISCUSS should be in my name, not on behalf of David),
> > I could also "DEFER" this draft.
> > I also see that the authors/David engaged in the discussion on the
> > ietf@ietf.org list. Good.
> For what it's worth, BenoƮt, I'm perfectly happy with your DISCUSS for
> this, even though it's kind of on the edge of the defined process.
> Making sure the comment is address adequately is important, and we're
> doing the right thing.
> There was, in fact, discussion about this, and David did not agree
> with Martin's response.  I'll note that both Stephen and Kathleen
> balloted Yes on this document, without mentioning the issue.  On the
> other hand, as it wasn't copied to the IESG list, they might not have
> seen it raised.  Let's talk about it with them on the call.
> Barry
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 16:44:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC