- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2023 22:24:39 +0000
- To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
- Message-ID: <047c7a54-32e1-9582-9f1d-af481eba37de@cs.tcd.ie>
To tidy up: now that john.doe's less threatened again I support adoption:-) I also like the sound of one of Chris's suggestions [1] to make k= less identifying so hope the WG explore that kind of design as we go. Cheers, S. [1] https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/18 On 07/02/2023 22:02, David Schinazi wrote: > Thank everyone for the review! > > I totally agree that the u= parameter was not intended as a super-cookie > but instead as a key identifier (i.e. what key should the server use to > check the HMAC or signature?). Chris's proposal to rename it from u= to k= > sounds good to me, and also adding text to warn against tracking vectors > sounds warranted. I've filed [1] to track this. > > I'll jump into potential solutions to these GitHub issues once the adoption > call is complete. > > Thanks, > David > > [1] > https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/23 > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 12:44 PM Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> > wrote: > >> I'm supportive of adopting this draft on the basis of the desired use >> cases. They may be rather niche -- and should likely be added to the draft >> [0] -- but I understand them to have value. >> >> I do have some questions about the technical contents, which I've filed >> issues to track [1,2,3,4,5]. I'm happy to help seek resolution of those on >> GitHub. >> >> Are there any implementations of this mechanism yet? I would be happy to >> help provide an implementation of the server piece for interop tests. >> >> Best, >> Chris >> >> [0] >> https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/22 >> [1] >> https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/17 >> [2] >> https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/18 >> [3] >> https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/19 >> [4] >> https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/20 >> [5] >> https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-httpbis-transport-auth/issues/21 >> >>> On Feb 7, 2023, at 12:58 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> We first discussed this draft at IETF114[1], saw implementation >> interest at IETF115, [2] and finally had some more list discussion. >>> >>> This is a Call for Adoption for: >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schinazi-httpbis-unprompted-auth-01.html >>> >>> Please indicate (in response to this message) whether you support >> adoption, and whether you intend to implement. >>> >>> The CfA will last for two weeks. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> 1. >> https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf114/minutes.html#transport-auth-david-schinazi >>> 1. https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf115/minutes.html#unprompted-auth >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Attachments
- application/pgp-keys attachment: OpenPGP public key
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2023 22:25:01 UTC