[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

HTTP                                                            R. Polli
Internet-Draft                         Team Digitale, Italian Government
Intended status: Standards Track                               L. Pardue
Expires: May 6, 2020                                          Cloudflare
                                                       November 03, 2019


                             Digest Headers
                  draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-01

Abstract

   This document defines the Digest and Want-Digest header fields for
   HTTP, thus allowing client and server to negotiate an integrity
   checksum of the exchanged resource representation data.

   This document obsoletes RFC 3230.  It replaces the term "instance"
   with "representation", which makes it consistent with the HTTP
   Semantic and Context defined in RFC 7231.

Note to Readers

   _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_

   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 at
   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions [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 May 6, 2020.




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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
     1.1.  A Brief History of Integrity Header Fields  . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  This Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Resource Representation and Representation-Data . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Digest Algorithm Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Representation Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.1.  digest-algorithm Encoding Examples  . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Header Field Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Want-Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Digest  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Use of Digest when acting on resources  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Digest and PATCH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Deprecate Negotiation of Content-MD5  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Broken Cryptographic Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Relationship to Subresource Integrity (SRI) . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Supporting Both SRI and Representation Digest . . . . . .  14
   9.  Examples of Unsolicited Digest  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.1.  Server Returns Full Representation Data . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.2.  Server Returns No Representation Data . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.3.  Server Returns Partial Representation Data  . . . . . . .  15
     9.4.  Client and Server Provide Full Representation Data  . . .  15
     9.5.  Client Provides Full Representation Data, Server Provides
           No Representation Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.6.  Client and Server Provide Full Representation Data,
           Client Uses id-sha-256. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.7.  POST Response does not Reference the Request URI  . . . .  17
     9.8.  POST Response Describes the Request Status  . . . . . . .  18
     9.9.  Digest with PATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. Examples of Want-Digest Solicited Digest  . . . . . . . . . .  19



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


     10.1.  Server Selects Client's Least Preferred Algorithm  . . .  20
     10.2.  Server Selects Algorithm Unsupported by Client . . . . .  20
     10.3.  Server Does Not Support Client Algorithm and Returns an
            Error  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     11.1.  Digest Does Not Protect the Full HTTP Message  . . . . .  21
     11.2.  Broken Cryptographic Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     11.3.  Other Deprecated Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     11.4.  Digest for End-to-End Integrity  . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     11.5.  Usage in Signatures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     11.6.  Message Truncation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     11.7.  Algorithm Agility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     12.1.  Establish the HTTP Digest Algorithm Values . . . . . . .  22
     12.2.  The "status" Field in the HTTP Digest Algorithm Values .  23
     12.3.  Deprecate "MD5" Digest Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     12.4.  Update "CRC32C" Digest Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     12.5.  Obsolete "SHA" Digest Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     12.6.  Obsolete "ADLER32" Digest Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . .  24
     12.7.  The "ID-SHA-256" Digest Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     12.8.  The "ID-SHA-512" Digest Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     12.9.  Changes compared to RFC5843  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     12.10. Want-Digest Header Field Registration  . . . . . . . . .  25
     12.11. Digest Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     13.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix A.  FAQ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Code Samples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     D.1.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-00  . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

1.  Introduction

   The core specification of HTTP does not define a means to protect the
   integrity of resources.  When HTTP messages are transferred between
   endpoints, the protocol might choose to make use of features of the
   lower layer in order to provide some integrity protection; for
   instance TCP checksums or TLS records [RFC2818].

   However, there are cases where relying on this alone is insufficient.
   An HTTP-level integrity mechanism that operates independent of
   transfer can be used to detect programming errors and/or corruption
   of data at rest, be used across multiple hops in order to provide
   end-to-end integrity guarantees, aid fault diagnosis across hops and



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   system boundaries, and can be used to validate integrity when
   reconstructing a resource fetched using different HTTP connections.

   This document defines a mechanism that acts on HTTP representation-
   data.  It can be combined with other mechanisms that protect
   representation-metadata, such as digital signatures, in order to
   protect the desired parts of an HTTP exchange in whole or in part.

1.1.  A Brief History of Integrity Header Fields

   The Content-MD5 header field was originally introduced to provide
   integrity, but HTTP/1.1 ([RFC7231], Appendix B) obsoleted it:

      The Content-MD5 header field has been removed because it was
      inconsistently implemented with respect to partial responses.

   [RFC3230] provided a more flexible solution introducing the concept
   of "instance", and the header fields "Digest" and "Want-Digest".

1.2.  This Proposal

   The concept of "selected representation" defined in [RFC7231] made
   [RFC3230] definitions inconsistent with the current standard.  A
   refresh was then required.

   This document updates the "Digest" and "Want-Digest" header field
   definitions to align with [RFC7231] concepts.

   This approach can be easily adapted to use-cases where the
   transferred data does require some sort of manipulation to be
   considered a representation or conveys a partial representation of a
   resource (eg.  Range Requests [RFC7233]).

   Changes are semantically compatible with existing implementations and
   better cover both the request and response cases.

   The value of "Digest" is calculated on selected representation, which
   is tied to the value contained in any "Content-Encoding" or "Content-
   Type" header fields.  Therefore, a given resource may have multiple
   different digest values.

   To allow both parties to exchange a Digest of a representation with
   no content codings [3] two more algorithms are added ("ID-SHA-256"
   and "ID-SHA-512").







Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


1.3.  Goals

   The goals of this proposal are:

   1.  Digest coverage for either the resource's "representation data"
       or "selected representation data" communicated via HTTP.

   2.  Support for multiple digest algorithms.

   3.  Negotiation of the use of digests.

   The goals do not include:

   HTTP Message integrity:  The digest mechanism described here does not
      cover the full HTTP message nor its semantic, as representation
      metadata are not included in the checksum.

   Header field integrity:  The digest mechanisms described here cover
      only representation and selected representation data, and do not
      protect the integrity of associated representation metadata or
      other message header fields.

   Authentication:  The digest mechanisms described here are not meant
      to support authentication of the source of a digest or of a
      message or anything else.  These mechanisms, therefore, are not a
      sufficient defense against many kinds of malicious attacks.

   Privacy:  Digest mechanisms do not provide message privacy.

   Authorization:  The digest mechanisms described here are not meant to
      support authorization or other kinds of access controls.

1.4.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 ([RFC2119] and [RFC8174]) when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This document uses the Augmented BNF defined in [RFC5234] and updated
   by [RFC7405] along with the "#rule" extension defined in Section 7 of
   [RFC7230].

   The definitions "representation", "selected representation",
   "representation data", "representation metadata", and "payload body"
   in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC7230] and
   [RFC7231].



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   The definition "validator" in this document is to be interpreted as
   described in Section 7.2 of [RFC7231].

2.  Resource Representation and Representation-Data

   To avoid inconsistencies, an integrity mechanism for HTTP messages
   should decouple the checksum calculation from:

   o  the payload body - which may be altered by mechanism like Range
      Requests [RFC7233] or the method (eg.  HEAD);

   o  and the message body - which depends on "Transfer-Encoding" and
      whatever transformations the intermediaries may apply.

   The following examples show how representation metadata, payload
   transformations and method impacts on the message and payload body.

   Here is a gzip-compressed json object

   Request:

   PUT /entries/1234 HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: gzip

   H4sIAItWyFwC/6tWSlSyUlAypANQqgUAREcqfG0AAAA=

   Now the same payload body conveys a malformed json object.

   Request:

   PUT /entries/1234 HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/json

   H4sIAItWyFwC/6tWSlSyUlAypANQqgUAREcqfG0AAAA=

   A Range-Request alters the payload body, conveying a partial
   representation.

   Request:

   GET /entries/1234 HTTP/1.1
   Range: bytes=1-7


   Response:





Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
   Content-Encoding: gzip
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Range: bytes 1-7/18

   iwgAla3RXA==

   Now the method too alters the payload body.

   Request:

   HEAD /entries/1234 HTTP/1.1
   Accept: application/json
   Accept-Encoding: gzip


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: gzip


3.  Digest Algorithm Values

   Digest algorithm values are used to indicate a specific digest
   computation.  For some algorithms, one or more parameters may be
   supplied.

      digest-algorithm = token

   The BNF for "parameter" is as is used in [RFC7230].  All digest-
   algorithm values are case-insensitive.

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for
   digest-algorithm values.  The registry contains the following tokens.

   SHA-256:

      *  Description: The SHA-256 algorithm [RFC6234].  The output of
         this algorithm is encoded using the base64 encoding [RFC4648].

      *  Reference: [RFC6234], [RFC4648], this document.

      *  Status: standard

   SHA-512:




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


      *  Description: The SHA-512 algorithm [RFC6234].  The output of
         this algorithm is encoded using the base64 encoding [RFC4648].

      *  Reference: [RFC6234], [RFC4648], this document.

      *  Status: standard

   MD5:

      *  Description: The MD5 algorithm, as specified in [RFC1321].  The
         output of this algorithm is encoded using the base64 encoding
         [RFC4648].  The MD5 algorithm MUST NOT be used as it's now
         vulnerable to collision attacks [CMU-836068].

      *  Reference: [RFC1321], [RFC4648], this document.

      *  Status: deprecated

   SHA:

      *  Description: The SHA-1 algorithm [RFC3174].  The output of this
         algorithm is encoded using the base64 encoding [RFC4648].  The
         SHA algorithm is NOT RECOMMENDED as it's now vulnerable to
         collision attacks [IACR-2019-459].

      *  Reference: [RFC3174], [RFC6234], [RFC4648], this document.

      *  Status: obsoleted

   UNIXsum:

      *  Description: The algorithm computed by the UNIX "sum" command,
         as defined by the Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 [UNIX].
         The output of this algorithm is an ASCII decimal-digit string
         representing the 16-bit checksum, which is the first word of
         the output of the UNIX "sum" command.

      *  Reference: [UNIX], this document.

      *  Status: standard

   UNIXcksum:

      *  Description: The algorithm computed by the UNIX "cksum"
         command, as defined by the Single UNIX Specification, Version 2
         [UNIX].  The output of this algorithm is an ASCII digit string
         representing the 32-bit CRC, which is the first word of the
         output of the UNIX "cksum" command.



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


      *  Reference: [UNIX], this document.

      *  Status: standard

   To allow sender and recipient to provide a checksum which is
   independent from "Content-Encoding", the following additional
   algorithms are defined:

   ID-SHA-512:

      *  Description: The sha-512 digest of the representation-data of
         the resource when no content coding is applied (eg.  "Content-
         Encoding: identity")

      *  Reference: [RFC6234], [RFC4648], this document.

      *  Status: standard

   ID-SHA-256:

      *  Description: The sha-256 digest of the representation-data of
         the resource when no content coding is applied (eg.  "Content-
         Encoding: identity")

      *  Reference: [RFC6234], [RFC4648], this document.

      *  Status: standard

   If other digest-algorithm values are defined, the associated encoding
   MUST either be represented as a quoted string, or MUST NOT include
   ";" or "," in the character sets used for the encoding.

3.1.  Representation Digest

   A representation digest is the value of the output of a digest
   algorithm, together with an indication of the algorithm used (and any
   parameters).

      representation-data-digest = digest-algorithm "="
                                   <encoded digest output>

   As explained in Section 2 the digest is computed on the entire
   selected "representation data" of the resource defined in [RFC7231]:

      representation-data := Content-Encoding( Content-Type( bits ) )

   The encoded digest output uses the encoding format defined for the
   specific digest-algorithm.



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


3.1.1.  digest-algorithm Encoding Examples

   The "sha-256" digest-algorithm uses base64 encoding.  Note that
   digest-algorithm values are case insensitive.

      sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

   The "UNIXsum" digest-algorithm uses ASCII string of decimal digits.

      UNIXsum=30637

4.  Header Field Specifications

   The following headers are defined

4.1.  Want-Digest

   The Want-Digest message header field indicates the sender's desire to
   receive a representation digest on messages associated with the
   request URI and representation metadata.

     Want-Digest = "Want-Digest" ":" OWS 1#want-digest-value
     want-digest-value = digest-algorithm [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue]
     qvalue = ( "0"  [ "."  0*1DIGIT ] ) /  ( "1"  [ "."  0*1( "0" ) ] )

   If a digest-algorithm is not accompanied by a qvalue, it is treated
   as if its associated qvalue were 1.0.

   The sender is willing to accept a digest-algorithm if and only if it
   is listed in a Want-Digest header field of a message, and its qvalue
   is non-zero.

   If multiple acceptable digest-algorithm values are given, the
   sender's preferred digest-algorithm is the one (or ones) with the
   highest qvalue.

   Two examples of its use are

      Want-Digest: sha-256
      Want-Digest: SHA-512;q=0.3, sha-256;q=1, md5;q=0

4.2.  Digest

   The Digest header field provides a digest of the representation data.

      Digest = "Digest" ":" OWS 1#representation-data-digest

   "Representation data" might be:



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   o  fully contained in the message body,

   o  partially-contained in the message body,

   o  or not at all contained in the message body.

   The resource is specified by the effective request URI and any
   "validator" contained in the message.

   For example, in a response to a HEAD request, the digest is
   calculated using the representation data that would have been
   enclosed in the payload body if the same request had been a GET.

   Digest can be used in requests too.

   The "Digest" value depends on the representation metadata.

   A Digest header field MAY contain multiple representation-data-digest
   values.  This could be useful for responses expected to reside in
   caches shared by users with different browsers, for example.

   A recipient MAY ignore any or all of the representation-data-digests
   in a Digest header field.  This allows the recipient to chose which
   digest-algorithm(s) to use for validation instead of verifying every
   received representation-data-digest.

   A sender MAY send a representation-data-digest using a digest-
   algorithm without knowing whether the recipient supports the digest-
   algorithm, or even knowing that the recipient will ignore it.

   Two examples of its use are

   Digest: id-sha-512=WZDPaVn/7XgHaAy8pmojAkGWoRx2UFChF41A2svX+TaPm+AbwAgBWnrIiYllu7BNNyealdVLvRwE\nmTHWXvJwew==
   Digest: sha-256=4REjxQ4yrqUVicfSKYNO/cF9zNj5ANbzgDZt3/h3Qxo=, id-sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

5.  Use of Digest when acting on resources

   POST and PATCH requests may appear to convey partial representations
   but are semantically acting on resources.  The enclosed
   representation, including its metadata refers to that action.

   In these requests the representation digest MUST be computed on the
   representation-data of that action.

   This is the only possible choice because representation digest
   requires complete representation metadata (see Section 3.1).

   In responses,



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   o  if the representation describes the status of the request,
      "Digest" MUST be computed on the enclosed representation (see
      Section 9.8 );

   o  if there is a referenced resource "Digest" MUST be computed on the
      selected representation of the referenced resource even if that is
      different from the target resource.  That may or may not result in
      computing "Digest" on the enclosed representation.

   The latter case might be done accordingly to the HTTP semantics of
   the given method, for example using the "Content-Location" header
   field.

   Differently from "Content-Location", which is representation
   metadata, the "Location" header field does not affect "Digest".

5.1.  Digest and PATCH

   In PATCH requests the representation digest MUST be computed on the
   patch document.

   This is because the representation metadata refers to the patch
   document and not to the target resource (see Section 2 of [RFC5789]).

   In PATCH responses the representation digest MUST be computed on the
   selected representation of the patched resource.

   "Digest" usage with PATCH is thus very similar to the POST one, but
   with the resource's own semantic partly implied by the method and by
   the patch document.

6.  Deprecate Negotiation of Content-MD5

   This RFC deprecates the negotiation of Content-MD5 as it has been
   obsoleted by [RFC7231]

7.  Broken Cryptographic Algorithms

   The MD5 algorithm MUST NOT be used as it has been found vulnerable to
   collision attacks [CMU-836068].

   The SHA algorithm is NOT RECOMMENDED as it has been found vulnerable
   to collision attacks [IACR-2019-459].








Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


8.  Relationship to Subresource Integrity (SRI)

   Subresource Integrity [SRI] is an integrity mechanism that shares
   some similarities to the present document's mechanism.  However,
   there are differences in motivating factors, threat model and
   specification of integrity digest generation, signalling and
   validation.

   SRI allows a first-party authority to declare an integrity assertion
   on a resource served by a first or third party authority.  This is
   done via the "integrity" attribute that can added to "script" or
   "link" HTML elements.  Therefore, the integrity assertion is always
   made out-of-band to the resource fetch.  In contrast, the "Digest"
   header field is supplied in-band alongside the selected
   representation, meaning that an authority can only declare an
   integrity assertion for itself.  Methods to improve the security
   properties of representation digests are presented in Section 11.
   This contrast is interesting because on one hand self-assertion is
   less likely to be affected by coordination problems such as the
   first-party holding stale information about the third party, but on
   the other hand the self-assertion is only as trustworthy as the
   authority that provided it.

   The SRI "integrity" attribute contains a cryptographic hash algorithm
   and digest value which is similar to "representation-data-digest"
   (see Section 3.1).  The major differences are in serialization
   format.

   The SRI digest value is calculated over the identity encoding of the
   resource, not the selected representation (as specified for
   "representation-data-digest" in this document).  Section 3.4.5 of
   [SRI] describes the benefit of the identity approach - the SRI
   "integrity" attribute can contain multiple algorithm-value pairs
   where each applies to a different identity encoded payload.  This
   allows for protection of distinct resources sharing a URL.  However,
   this is a contrast to the design of representation digests, where
   multiple "Digest" field-values all protect the same representation.

   SRI does not specify handling of partial representation data (e.g.
   Range requests).  In contrast, this document specifies handling in
   terms that are fully compatible with core HTTP concepts (an example
   is provided in Section 9.3).

   SRI specifies strong requirements on the selection of algorithm for
   generation and validation of digests.  In contrast, the requirements
   in this document are weaker.





Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   SRI defines no method for a client to declare an integrity assertion
   on resources it transfers to a server.  In contrast, the "Digest"
   header field can appear on requests.

8.1.  Supporting Both SRI and Representation Digest

   The SRI and Representation Digest mechanism are different and
   complementary but one is not capable of replacing the other because
   they have have different threat, security and implementation
   properties.

   A user agent that supports both mechanisms is expected to apply the
   rules specified for each but since the two mechanisms are
   independent, the ordering is not important.  However, a user agent
   supporting both could benefit from performing representation digest
   validation first because the it does not require a conversion to into
   identity encoding.

   There is a chance that a user agent supporting both mechanisms may
   find one validates successfully while the other fails.  This document
   specifies no requirements or guidance for user agents that experience
   such cases.

9.  Examples of Unsolicited Digest

   The following examples demonstrate interactions where a server
   responds with a "Digest" header field even though the client did not
   solicit one using "Want-Digest".

9.1.  Server Returns Full Representation Data

   Request:

   GET /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: identity
   Digest: sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

   {"hello": "world"}







Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


9.2.  Server Returns No Representation Data

   As there is no content coding applied, the "sha-256" and the "id-sha-
   256" digest-values are the same.

   Request:

   HEAD /items/123


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: identity
   Digest: id-sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=


9.3.  Server Returns Partial Representation Data

   Request:

   GET /items/123
   Range: bytes=1-7


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: identity
   Content-Range: bytes 1-7/18
   Digest: sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

   "hello"

9.4.  Client and Server Provide Full Representation Data

   The request contains a "Digest" header calculated on the enclosed
   representation.

   It also includes an "Accept-Encoding: br" header field that
   advertises the client supports brotli encoding.

   The response includes a "Content-Encoding: br" that indicates the
   selected representation is brotli encoded.  The "Digest" field-value
   is therefore different compared to the request.




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   Request:

   PUT /items/123
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: identity
   Accept-Encoding: br
   Digest: sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

   {"hello": "world"}

   Response:

   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: br
   Digest: sha-256=4REjxQ4yrqUVicfSKYNO/cF9zNj5ANbzgDZt3/h3Qxo=

   iwiAeyJoZWxsbyI6ICJ3b3JsZCJ9Aw==

9.5.  Client Provides Full Representation Data, Server Provides No
      Representation Data

   Request "Digest" value is calculated on the enclosed payload.
   Response "Digest" value depends on the representation metadata header
   fields, including "Content-Encoding: br" even when the response does
   not contain a payload body.

   Request:

   PUT /items/123
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: identity
   Content-Length: 18
   Accept-Encoding: br
   Digest: sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

   {"hello": "world"}

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: br
   Digest: sha-256=4REjxQ4yrqUVicfSKYNO/cF9zNj5ANbzgDZt3/h3Qxo=








Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


9.6.  Client and Server Provide Full Representation Data, Client Uses
      id-sha-256.

   The response contains two digest values:

   o  one with no content coding applied, which in this case
      accidentally matches the unencoded digest-value sent in the
      request;

   o  one taking into account the "Content-Encoding".

   Request:

   PUT /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: identity
   Accept-Encoding: br
   Digest: sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

   {"hello": "world"}

   Response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Encoding: br
Digest: sha-256=4REjxQ4yrqUVicfSKYNO/cF9zNj5ANbzgDZt3/h3Qxo=, id-sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

iwiAeyJoZWxsbyI6ICJ3b3JsZCJ9Aw==

9.7.  POST Response does not Reference the Request URI

   Request "Digest" value is computed on the enclosed representation
   (see Section 5).

   The representation enclosed in the response refers to the resource
   identified by "Content-Location" (see [RFC7231] Section 3.1.4.2 and
   Section 3.1.4.1 point 4).

   "Digest" is thus computed on the enclosed representation.

   Request:









Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   POST /books HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/json
   Accept: application/json
   Accept-Encoding: identity
   Digest: sha-256=bWopGGNiZtbVgHsG+I4knzfEJpmmmQHf7RHDXA3o1hQ=

   {"title": "New Title"}

   Response

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Content-Type: application/json
   Digest: id-sha-256=BZlF2v0IzjuxN01RQ97EUXriaNNLhtI8Chx8Eq+XYSc=
   Content-Location: /books/123

   {"id": "123", "title": "New Title"}

   Note that a "204 No Content" response without a payload body but with
   the same "Digest" field-value would have been legitimate too.

9.8.  POST Response Describes the Request Status

   Request "Digest" value is computed on the enclosed representation
   (see Section 5).

   The representation enclosed in the response describes the status of
   the request, so "Digest" is computed on that enclosed representation.

   Response "Digest" has no explicit relation with the resource
   referenced by "Location".

   Request:

   POST /books HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/json
   Accept: application/json
   Accept-Encoding: identity
   Digest: sha-256=bWopGGNiZtbVgHsG+I4knzfEJpmmmQHf7RHDXA3o1hQ=
   Location: /books/123

   {"title": "New Title"}

   Response








Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Content-Type: application/json
Digest: id-sha-256=0o/WKwSfnmIoSlop2LV/ISaBDth05IeW27zzNMUh5l8=
Location: /books/123

{"status": "created", "id": "123", "ts": 1569327729, "instance": "/books/123"}

9.9.  Digest with PATCH

   This case is analogous to a POST request where the target resource
   reflects the effective request URI.

   The PATCH request uses the "application/merge-patch+json" media type
   defined in [RFC7396].

   "Digest" is calculated on the enclosed payload, which corresponds to
   the patch document.

   The response "Digest" is computed on the complete representation of
   the patched resource.

   Request:

   PATCH /books/123 HTTP/1.1
   Content-Type: application/merge-patch+json
   Accept: application/json
   Accept-Encoding: identity
   Digest: sha-256=bWopGGNiZtbVgHsG+I4knzfEJpmmmQHf7RHDXA3o1hQ=

   {"title": "New Title"}

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Digest: id-sha-256=BZlF2v0IzjuxN01RQ97EUXriaNNLhtI8Chx8Eq+XYSc=

   {"id": "123", "title": "New Title"}

   Note that a "204 No Content" response without a payload body but with
   the same "Digest" field-value would have been legitimate too.

10.  Examples of Want-Digest Solicited Digest

   The following examples demonstrate interactions where a client
   solicits a "Digest" using "Want-Digest".





Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


10.1.  Server Selects Client's Least Preferred Algorithm

   The client requests a digest, preferring sha.  The server is free to
   reply with sha-256 anyway.

   Request:

   GET /items/123 HTTP/1.1
   Want-Digest: sha-256;q=0.3, sha;q=1


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json
   Content-Encoding: identity
   Digest: sha-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE=

   {"hello": "world"}

10.2.  Server Selects Algorithm Unsupported by Client

   The client requests a sha digest only.  The server is currently free
   to reply with a Digest containing an unsupported algorithm.

   Request:

   GET /items/123
   Want-Digest: sha;q=1


   Response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Encoding: identity
Digest: id-sha-512=WZDPaVn/7XgHaAy8pmojAkGWoRx2UFChF41A2svX+TaPm+AbwAgBWnrIiYllu7BNNyealdVLvRwE\nmTHWXvJwew==

{"hello": "world"}

10.3.  Server Does Not Support Client Algorithm and Returns an Error

   The client requests a sha Digest, the server advises for sha-256 and
   sha-512

   Request:





Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   GET /items/123
   Want-Digest: sha;q=1


   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
   Want-Digest: sha-256, sha-512


11.  Security Considerations

11.1.  Digest Does Not Protect the Full HTTP Message

   This document specifies a data integrity mechanism that protects HTTP
   "representation data", but not HTTP "representation metadata" header
   fields, from certain kinds of accidental corruption.

   "Digest" is not intended as general protection against malicious
   tampering with HTTP messages, this can be achieved by combining it
   with other approaches such as transport-layer security or digital
   signatures.

11.2.  Broken Cryptographic Algorithms

   Cryptographic algorithms are intended to provide a proof of integrity
   suited towards cryptographic constructions such as signatures.

   However, these rely on collision-resistance for their security proofs
   [CMU-836068].  The MD5 and SHA-1 algorithms are vulnerable to
   collisions attacks, so MD5 MUST NOT be used and SHA-1 is NOT
   RECOMMENDED for use with "Digest".

11.3.  Other Deprecated Algorithms

   The ADLER32 algorithm defined in [RFC1950] has been deprecated by
   [RFC3309] because under certain conditions it provides weak detection
   of errors and is now NOT RECOMMENDED for use with "Digest".

11.4.  Digest for End-to-End Integrity

   "Digest" alone does not provide end-to-end integrity of HTTP messages
   over multiple hops, as it just covers the "representation data" and
   not the "representation metadata".

   Besides, it allows to protect "representation data" from buggy
   manipulation, buggy compression, etc.




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   Moreover identity digest algorithms (eg.  ID-SHA-256 and ID-SHA-512)
   allow piecing together a resource from different sources (e.g.
   different servers that perhaps apply different content codings)
   enabling the user-agent to detect that the application-layer tasks
   completed properly, before handing off to say the HTML parser, video
   player etc.

   Even a simple mechanism for end-to-end validation is thus valuable.

11.5.  Usage in Signatures

   Digital signatures are widely used together with checksums to provide
   the certain identification of the origin of a message [NIST800-32].
   Such signatures can protect one or more header fields and there are
   additional considerations when "Digest" is included in this set.

   Since the "Digest" header field is a hash of a resource
   representation, it explicitly depends on the "representation
   metadata" (eg. the values of "Content-Type", "Content-Encoding" etc).
   A signature that protects "Digest" but not other "representation
   metadata" may expose the communication to tampering.  For example, an
   actor could manipulate the "Content-Type" field-value and cause a
   digest validation failure at the recipient, preventing the
   application from accessing the representation.  Such an attack
   consumes the resources of both endpoints.

   "Digest" SHOULD always be used over a connection which provides
   integrity at transport layer that protects HTTP header fields.

   A "Digest" header field using NOT RECOMMENDED digest-algorithms
   SHOULD NOT be used in signatures.

11.6.  Message Truncation

   ...

11.7.  Algorithm Agility

   ...

12.  IANA Considerations

12.1.  Establish the HTTP Digest Algorithm Values

   This memo sets this spec to be the establishing document for the HTTP
   Digest Algorithm Values [4]





Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


12.2.  The "status" Field in the HTTP Digest Algorithm Values

   This memo adds the field "Status" to the HTTP Digest Algorithm Values
   [5] registry.  The allowed values for the "Status" fields are
   described below.

   Status  Specify "standard", "experimental", "historic", "obsoleted",
      or "deprecated" according to the type and status of the primary
      document in which the algorithm is defined.

12.3.  Deprecate "MD5" Digest Algorithm

   This memo updates the "MD5" digest algorithm in the HTTP Digest
   Algorithm Values [6] registry:

   o  Digest Algorithm: MD5

   o  Description: As specified in Section 3.

   o  Status: As specified in Section 3.

12.4.  Update "CRC32C" Digest Algorithm

   This memo updates the "CRC32c" digest algorithm in the HTTP Digest
   Algorithm Values [7] registry:

   o  Digest Algorithm: CRC32c

   o  Description: The CRC32c algorithm is a 32-bit cyclic redundancy
      check.  It achieves a better hamming distance (for better error-
      detection performance) than many other 32-bit CRC functions.
      Other places it is used include iSCSI and SCTP.  The 32-bit output
      is encoded in hexadecimal (using between 1 and 8 ASCII characters
      from 0-9, A-F, and a-f; leading 0's are allowed).  For example,
      CRC32c=0a72a4df and crc32c=A72A4DF are both valid checksums for
      the 3-byte message "dog".

   o  Reference: [RFC4960] appendix B, this document.

   o  Status: standard.

12.5.  Obsolete "SHA" Digest Algorithm

   This memo updates the "SHA" digest algorithm in the HTTP Digest
   Algorithm Values [8] registry:

   o  Digest Algorithm: SHA




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   o  Description: As specified in Section 3.

   o  Status: As specified in Section 3.

12.6.  Obsolete "ADLER32" Digest Algorithm

   This memo updates the "ADLER32" digest algorithm in the HTTP Digest
   Algorithm Values [9] registry:

   o  Digest Algorithm: ADLER32

   o  Description: The ADLER32 algorithm is a checksum specified in
      [RFC1950] "ZLIB Compressed Data Format".  The 32-bit output is
      encoded in hexadecimal (using between 1 and 8 ASCII characters
      from 0-9, A-F, and a-f; leading 0's are allowed).  For example,
      ADLER32=03da0195 and ADLER32=3DA0195 are both valid checksums for
      the 4-byte message "Wiki".  This algorithm is obsoleted and SHOULD
      NOT be used.

   o  Status: obsoleted

12.7.  The "ID-SHA-256" Digest Algorithm

   This memo registers the "ID-SHA-256" digest algorithm in the HTTP
   Digest Algorithm Values [10] registry:

   o  Digest Algorithm: ID-SHA-256

   o  Description: As specified in Section 3.

   o  Status: As specified in Section 3.

12.8.  The "ID-SHA-512" Digest Algorithm

   This memo registers the "ID-SHA-512" digest algorithm in the HTTP
   Digest Algorithm Values [11] registry:

   o  Digest Algorithm: ID-SHA-512

   o  Description: As specified in Section 3.

   o  Status: As specified in Section 3.

12.9.  Changes compared to RFC5843

   The status of "MD5" has been updated to "deprecated", and its
   description states that this algorithm MUST NOT be used.




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   The status of "SHA" has been updated to "obsoleted", and its
   description states that this algorithm is NOT RECOMMENDED.

   The status for "CRC32C" has been updated to "standard".

   The "ID-SHA-256" and "ID-SHA-512" algorithms have been added to the
   registry.

12.10.  Want-Digest Header Field Registration

   This section registers the "Want-Digest" header field in the
   "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry ([RFC3864]).

   Header field name: "Want-Digest"

   Applicable protocol: http

   Status: standard

   Author/Change controller: IETF

   Specification document(s): Section 4.1 of this document

12.11.  Digest Header Field Registration

   This section registers the "Digest" header field in the "Permanent
   Message Header Field Names" registry ([RFC3864]).

   Header field name: "Digest"

   Applicable protocol: http

   Status: standard

   Author/Change controller: IETF

   Specification document(s): Section 4.2 of this document

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [CMU-836068]
              Carnagie Mellon University, Software Engineering
              Institute, "MD5 Vulnerable to collision attacks", December
              2008, <https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836068/>.





Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   [IACR-2019-459]
              Leurent, G. and T. Peyrin, "From Collisions to Chosen-
              Prefix Collisions Application to Full SHA-1", May 2019,
              <https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459.pdf>.

   [NIST800-32]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
              Department of Commerce, "Introduction to Public Key
              Technology and the Federal PKI Infrastructure", February
              2001, <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/
              nistspecialpublication800-32.pdf>.

   [RFC1321]  Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1321, April 1992,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1321>.

   [RFC1950]  Deutsch, P. and J-L. Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format
              Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1950, May 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1950>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3174]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1
              (SHA1)", RFC 3174, DOI 10.17487/RFC3174, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3174>.

   [RFC3230]  Mogul, J. and A. Van Hoff, "Instance Digests in HTTP",
              RFC 3230, DOI 10.17487/RFC3230, January 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3230>.

   [RFC3309]  Stone, J., Stewart, R., and D. Otis, "Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change", RFC 3309,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3309, September 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3309>.

   [RFC3864]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC5843]  Bryan, A., "Additional Hash Algorithms for HTTP Instance
              Digests", RFC 5843, DOI 10.17487/RFC5843, April 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5843>.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7233]  Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
              "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests",
              RFC 7233, DOI 10.17487/RFC7233, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7233>.

   [RFC7405]  Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF",
              RFC 7405, DOI 10.17487/RFC7405, December 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7405>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [UNIX]     The Open Group, "The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2
              - 6 Vol Set for UNIX 98", February 1997.








Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC5789]  Dusseault, L. and J. Snell, "PATCH Method for HTTP",
              RFC 5789, DOI 10.17487/RFC5789, March 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5789>.

   [RFC7396]  Hoffman, P. and J. Snell, "JSON Merge Patch", RFC 7396,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7396, October 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7396>.

   [SRI]      Akhawe, D., Braun, F., Marier, F., and J. Weinberger,
              "Subresource Integrity", W3C Recommendation REC-SRI-
              20160623, June 2016,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/REC-SRI-20160623/>.

13.3.  URIs

   [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/

   [2] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions

   [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-3.1.2.1

   [4] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

   [5] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

   [6] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

   [7] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

   [8] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

   [9] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

   [10] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

   [11] https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml

Appendix A.  FAQ

   1.  Why remove all references to content-md5?

       Those were unnecessary to understanding and using this spec.



Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   2.  Why remove references to instance manipulation?

       Those were unnecessary for correctly using and applying the spec.
       An example with Range Request is more than enough.  This doc uses
       the term "partial representation" which should group all those
       cases.

   3.  How to use "Digest" with "PATCH" method?

       See Section 5.

   4.  Why remove references to delta-encoding?

       Unnecessary for a correct implementation of this spec.  The
       revised spec can be nicely adapted to "delta encoding", but all
       the references here to delta encoding don't add anything to this
       RFC.  Another job would be to refresh delta encoding.

   5.  Why remove references to Digest Authentication?

       This RFC seems to me completely unrelated to Digest
       Authentication but for the word "Digest".

   6.  What changes in "Want-Digest"?

       We allow to use the "Want-Digest" in responses to advertise the
       supported digest-algorithms and the inability to accept requests
       with unsupported digest-algorithms.

   7.  Does this spec changes supported algorithms?

       This RFC updates [RFC5843] which is still delegated for all
       algorithms updates, and adds two more algorithms: ID-SHA-256 and
       ID-SHA-512 which allows to send a checksum of a resource
       representation with no content codings applied.

Acknowledgements

   The vast majority of this document is inherited from [RFC3230], so
   thanks to J.  Mogul and A.  Van Hoff for their great work.  The
   original idea of refreshing this document arose from an interesting
   discussion with M.  Nottingham, J.  Yasskin and M.  Thomson when
   reviewing the MICE content coding.








Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


Code Samples

   _RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication._

   How can I generate and validate the Digest values shown in the
   examples throughout this document?

   The following python3 code can be used to generate digests for json
   objects using SHA algorithms for a range of encodings.  Note that
   these are formatted as base64.  This function could be adapted to
   other algorithms and should take into account their specific
   formatting rules.

import base64, json, hashlib, brotli


def digest(item, encoding=lambda x: x, algorithm=hashlib.sha256):
    json_bytes = json.dumps(item).encode()
    content_encoded = encoding(json_bytes)
    checksum_bytes = algorithm(content_encoded).digest()
    return base64.encodebytes(checksum_bytes).strip()


item = {"hello": "world"}

print("Identity encoding, sha256", digest(item))
# Out: Identity encoding, sha256 4REjxQ4yrqUVicfSKYNO/cF9zNj5ANbzgDZt3/h3Qxo=

print("Brotli encoding, sha256", digest(item, encoding=brotli.compress))
# Out: Brotli encoding, sha256 4REjxQ4yrqUVicfSKYNO/cF9zNj5ANbzgDZt3/h3Qxo=

print("Identity encoding, sha512", digest(item, algorithm=hashlib.sha512))
# Out: Identity encoding, sha512 b'WZDPaVn/7XgHaAy8pmojAkGWoRx2UFChF41A2svX+TaPm+AbwAgBWnrIiYllu7BNNyealdVLvRwE\nmTHWXvJwew==\n'

Changes

   _RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication._

D.1.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers-00

   o  Align title with document name

   o  Add id-sha-* algorithm examples #880

   o  Reference [RFC6234] and [RFC3174] instead of FIPS-1

   o  Deprecate MD5




Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft               Digest Headers                November 2019


   o  Obsolete ADLER-32 but don't forbid it #828

   o  Update CRC32C value in IANA table #828

   o  Use when acting on resources (POST, PATCH) #853

   o  Added Relationship with SRI, draft Use Cases #868, #971

Authors' Addresses

   Roberto Polli
   Team Digitale, Italian Government

   Email: robipolli@gmail.com


   Lucas Pardue
   Cloudflare

   Email: lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com































Polli & Pardue             Expires May 6, 2020                 [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/