Subject: [http-auth] WGLC for draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-08

From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:24:15 -0400

HTTPAuth WG,

We are starting a Work Group Last Call (WGLC) for the
draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-08 document:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-08

This will be a 3 week WGLC, because of the IETF week.

Please, review the document and provide your feedback, on the HTTPAuth
mailing list, by November 11, 2015.

Regards,
 Rifaat & Yoav

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:06:35 +0100

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-08

There appears to be some traces of channel binding support, for example
the security consideration talks about how to the SCRAM channel binding
mechanism can be used to twart some attacks, and there is a reference to
the tls-server-end-point document.  Further, section 5 says that the
channel binding flag is 'n', 'y' or 'p', which is unhelpful as this
document only supports 'n' so it should say that instead.

I believe it would be useful to have support for channel bindings when
used over HTTPS to have better security properties.  Given the status of
SCRAM-PLUS (with having to require tls-session-hash to have tls-unique
be secure) I think it is acceptable to publish this document without it.
Someone can specify a SCRAM-SHA256-PLUS HTTP Authentication Mechanism in
the future should the need arise.

I suggest dropping SCRAM-SHA-1 and focusing solely on SCRAM-SHA-256.
Specifying both seems like a recipie for poor interop, and I don't see a
significant use-case for having both.

I'm also curious, has anyone implemented this?  Does any HTTP clients,
especially browsers, plan to implement this?

Thanks,
/Simon