Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-replay-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, thanks for reviewing.  A few responses below.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mirja Kühlewind <> wrote:
> 1) sec 5.1: "Multiple instances MUST
>    be treated as equivalent to a single instance by a server."
> What happens if the multiple instances have different values? Does that
> generate an error? Or more generally, what if the value is not 1?

Someone else picked up on the same thing apparently.  The current
editor's draft says:

"Multiple or invalid instances of the header field MUST be treated as
equivalent to a single instance with a value of 1 by a server."

> 2) "The server cannot assume that a client is able to retry a request
>    unless the request is received in early data or the "Early-Data"
>    header field is set to "1".  A server SHOULD NOT emit the 425 status
>    code unless one of these conditions is met."
> Shouldn't actually both criteria be met?

Either is what we want.  A server might receive a request in early
data without the header field.  User agents don't add the header field
typically.  A server might also receive a request on a after the
handshake completes (and even in TLS 1.2, that's why we insist that
the intermediary know that servers understand this feature) with the
header field.

> 3) Are there any additional risks/attacks possible with the use of the
> "Early-Data" header field or "Too Early" status code? I thought that should be
> covered in the security considerations as well...

These are strictly mitigation techniques.  I don't think that they
increase attack surface.  They only make stuff fail in circumstances
where things might not be safe.

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2018 07:56:27 UTC