Origin-signed HTTP Responses
draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-12-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
http                                                          J. Yasskin
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Standards Track                       December 05, 2017
Expires: June 8, 2018

                      Origin-signed HTTP Responses
             draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-01

Abstract

   This document explores how a server can send particular responses
   that are authoritative for an origin, when the server itself is not
   authoritative for that origin.  For now, the appendices containing
   use cases and requirements should be treated as more confident than
   the proposal itself.

Note to Readers

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group
   mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ [1].

   The source code and issues list for this draft can be found in
   https://github.com/WICG/webpackage [2].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 8, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Yasskin                   Expires June 8, 2018                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Origin-signed HTTP Responses         December 2017

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Straw proposal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  The Signed-Headers Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  The Signature Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Open Questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Significant parts of an exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.3.1.  Open Questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  CBOR representation of an exchange  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.4.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  Canonical CBOR serialization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.6.  Signature validity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.6.1.  Validating a certificate chain for an authority . . .  12
       3.6.2.  Open Questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.7.  Updating signature validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.7.1.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Aspects of the straw proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Privacy considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Use cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.1.  PUSHed subresources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.2.  Explicit use of a content distributor for subresources  .  21
     A.3.  Subresource Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.4.  Offline websites  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix B.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     B.1.  Proof of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       B.1.1.  Certificate constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       B.1.2.  Signature constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       B.1.3.  Retrieving the certificate  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
Show full document text