- From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:50:13 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Hi Mark, On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:44:58AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Ben, > > > On 17 Jun 2021, at 6:39 am, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thank you for this quite masterfully done mammoth undertaking! I expect > > to ballot Yes pending discussion of one point. > > > > I'm looking at the following text in Section 4.3.4 relating to how to > > handle certificate validation failures for https: > > > > If the certificate is not valid for the URI's origin server, a user > > agent MUST either notify the user (user agents MAY give the user an > > option to continue with the connection in any case) or terminate the > > connection with a bad certificate error. [...] > > > > Given the discussion up in §3.5 about requirements to "notify" the user > > vs requiring "confirmation" from the user, I don't think that just "MUST > > notify the user" is sufficient to prevent the user-agent from > > continuing, since it is sufficient to just write a log entry as the > > means to notify the user. Is the intent to require confirmation of the > > action to continue in the face of such an error (which, again per §3.5 > > could be a pre-configured confirmation)? An intent to require > > "confirmation" (vs mere "notification") seems consistent with the > > subsequent text placing requirements on automated clients and would be > > more consistent with my understanding of general IETF consensus for > > securing protocols > > Good catch. I think that 'notify the user' --> 'obtain confirmation from the user' is the right change here (possibly with a reference to 3.5). > > Anyone disagree? Not I -- that sounds good to me. The parenthetical might want a bit of reworking (or removal?) as a follow-up, though. Thanks, Ben
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2021 02:50:53 UTC