Subject: Re: [Unbearable] Should Token Binding support non-TLS applications?

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:41:59 -0800

I scrawled back on Wed, 27 Jan 2016:
 > on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:05:30 +0000 Andrei Popov
 > <[email-masked]> wrote:
 >
 > > QUIC's use of TB will require a separate specification with their own
 > > TB parameters negotiation mechanism, and their own binding method
 > > (analogous to EKM for TLS).
 >
 > ISTM at this time that draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-04 needs a bit of work
 > in order to make it truly agnostic wrt the underlying transport protocol
 > (i.e., TLS or QUIC or whatever).

see: https://github.com/TokenBinding/Internet-Drafts/pull/15

In the spirit of supporting "security protocols other than TLS and 
application protocols other than HTTP", as Andrei noted here..

Re: [Unbearable] Should Token Binding support non-TLS applications?
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/unbearable/current/msg00287.html

..I've drafted what seem to be the minimal changes to 
draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-04 in order to make the TB protocol itself 
agnostic to the secure transport layer underlying the application layer, and 
to generalize from HTTP.

Note that the admonitions wrt TLS 1.2 (and earlier) Triple Handshake vuln 
and remediations thereof, noted in sections 4 and 8.5, are removed entirely. 
This is for two reasons: (1) this is TLS-specific, and (2) is already 
addressed draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation.

Other than that, and updating the spec's title, the changes are fairly minor.

However, still to be done:

1. Move the TLS-specific keying material exporting language to 
draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation.
2. further surgery needed to fully generalize from HTTP-specific app layer 
assumptions.
3. I have further detailed feedback on draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-04 still 
to post (coming soon)

visual side-by-side diff available here: 
http://kingsmountain.com/doc/diff/Diff--draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-04.txt--to--draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-04b.txt.html

HTH,

=JeffH

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:51:04 -0800

What is your goal?  A direct coupling has the advantage that you don't
have a different STL created that does not meet the basic
requirements.

I don't see any text establishing requirements on the STL and the
token that it exports.  That would seem to be important.

On 21 February 2016 at 11:41, =JeffH <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Unbearable mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable