- From: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:19:41 -0500
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF8qwaCB6jsa03jtL+9W06s+Aqh1+ftwZaM+PH-b=5Omq5KG_w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3 have a minor incompatibility around post-handshake authentication. Mike Bishop suggested that, rather than add some text in the secondary certs draft, it would better to make a separate document that actually updates HTTP/2. I've done so and uploaded a draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davidben-http2-tls13-00 https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-davidben-http2-tls13-00.txt HTTP/2 was specified against TLS 1.2, which had a renegotiation mechanism to rekey the connection. It additionally changed parameters, so in HTTP/1.1, this is often used in a hack to implement reactive client auth <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-secondary-certs-03#section-1.2.1>. This hack doesn't work in a multiplexed protocol like HTTP/2, because the client cannot tell which request triggered the authentication request. Thus, HTTP/2 forbids renegotiation <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-9.2.1>. TLS 1.3 removed renegotiation and replaced it with two features: a lightweight key update, and post-handshake client authentication. The former is meant to be transparent and is compatible with HTTP/2. The latter reintroduces renegotiation's multiplexing problems. There is no spec text which says how to interpret HTTP/2's existing renegotiation ban in TLS 1.3. The draft fixes it by documenting the status quo. KeyUpdate is fine. It is internal to the TLS stack and works just fine in existing servers[*]. Post-handshake auth is forbidden. No existing servers request it because they already do not request renegotiation, and no existing clients accept it because they cannot usefully interpret it. Instead, the reactive client auth use case for HTTP/2 is instead being covered by draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-secondary-certs. Note it's not sufficient to lean on the TLS 1.3 post_handshake_auth extension because that extension is not correlated with ALPN. A client may wish to support post-handshake auth with HTTP/1.1, for continuity with the TLS 1.2 renego hack, while still supporting HTTP/2. David [*] Aside from an OpenSSL bug <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Aw1WY5gBAifAZXowgx5Ym82RIKI> which, pertinently, made some applications misinterpret it as a renegotiation to be blocked. That bug has been fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1b <https://www.openssl.org/news/changelog.html#x1>.
Received on Monday, 1 April 2019 23:20:20 UTC