Telechat Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08
review-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08-opsdir-telechat-hares-2013-12-18-00

Ops-dir folks:



I am reviewing the following document:



Susan Hares T 2013-12-17 draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-09



But the IESG write-up states the following should reviewed together:

* draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging

* draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics

* draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional

* draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range

* draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache

* draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth (

Peter Schoenmaker Ops-Dir reviewer)

* draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations (

Michael Sneed, Ops-dir

* draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations (Sue Hares Reviewer)



I am concerned about the breaking of the review of
httpbis-authscheme-registrations away From the draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth and
the draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.  I have read all three drafts.





So this is addressed to the reviewers of the httpbis documents for this week

Niclas Comstedt        T 2013-12-17 draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25

Menachem Dodge         T 2013-12-17 draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-25

Lionel Morand          T 2013-12-17 draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25

Sarah Banks            T 2013-12-17 draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25

Peter Schoenmaker      T 2013-12-17 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25

Michael Sneed          T 2013-12-17 draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14

Susan Hares            T 2013-12-17
draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-09



Do you want me to: a) keep my comments to myself, b) send you comments that you
can review, or c) just send it to the ops-dir list?  I’m glad to collaborate
with the person reviewing these piece. Just let me know by email.





Review of the

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations



This document: Not ready.

Why not ready:  It is just really unclear exactly what IANA is putting in
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>



Here’s my guess:  I think that  IANA is simply giving the following as
potential WWW-Authenticate RFC values



WWW-Authenticate: [Basic]|[Bearer] |

                  [Digest] |[Negotiate]| [OAuth]



What’s the problem with reviewing just this document: Reviewing just this
document is like

tracing the validity of a string path that enters a wad of strings and exits
it.  Without looking at the whole scheme, you cannot tell if this is reason.





I have

 reviewed the specification reference in

draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations.



1)



Basic: RFC 2617: section 2 (nothing)



2)



Bearer: RFC 6750: bearers



Bearer authentication have 3 different bearer authentication schemes but no
logging of which is used.  The errors (due to HTTP errors reporting) seem to
merge several errors into the same error codes). Since this is an approved
RFC,  why does IANA have error codes for the different Bearer schemes?



What level of this work is “just encode” and what level is updated to the
latest in security handshaking schemes?  Should this be compared against the
OASIS work to secure portions of the information? That is – authenticate who
can have this piece of data using my HTTTP.



3)



Digest: RFC 2617:  Digest –

Even for routing protocols (sometimes called security light) the digests have
been considered weak.  What exactly the author is trying to suggest needs to be
included in the registry is not clear.



4)



Negotiate: RFC 54559: Section 3:

The author indicates that this breaks syntax by mixing Kerberos
(connection-oriented) and expanding the syntax (Authenticate/Authorization) by
not including the Kerberos gssapi-data in the initial WWW-Authenticate header.



It is entirely unclearly why this kludge in limited use is any more a kludge
than the rest of the system.   The comment on non-context specific ignores the
password/user digest issues of deployment



It is not clear why this needs to be noted in the IANA registration.



5)



OAuth: RFC5849: Section 3.5.1



Authorization: OAuth realm="Example",

        oauth_consumer_key="0685bd9184jfhq22",

        oauth_token="ad180jjd733klru7",

        oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",

        oauth_signature="wOJIO9A2W5mFwDgiDvZbTSMK%2FPY%3D",

        oauth_timestamp="137131200",

        oauth_nonce="4572616e48616d6d65724c61686176",

        oauth_version="1.0"

I have confirmed that referenced documents in  do reference these documents and
have comments. However, unless I look at the wider context of these documents,
I do not know if the IANA work is complete.



What bothers me in the macro-view:



However, I would like to comment on the protected space concept (Realm) and
proxy-authenticate in the draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-auth. The practical
implementation is impacted by the new world of VMs and shared information.



Respectfully, but

Sue Hares