Subject: Re: [regext] AD review of draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-06

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:06:58 +0000

Barry,

Done, draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-07 has been posted.  Let us know if you have any additional feedback.

Thanks,

-- 
 
JG

James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[email-masked] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email-masked]>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

On 1/26/21, 1:47 PM, "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    All good, and thanks.  Go ahead and post a revised I-D when you're ready.

    >>     The answer to all of that might be “no”, but it would be good to… as
    >>     we used to say in school, show your work.
    >
    > Yes, the quick answer is that I don't see the server using this as a
    > source for an attack, but we can add a consideration to help mitigate
    > it.  I can add the sentence "Since the unhandled namespace context is
    > XML that is not processed in the first pass by the XML parser, the
    > client SHOULD consider validating the XML when the content is
    > processed to protect against the inclusion of malicious content."  The
    > content is not processed by a client that doesn't support the service,
    > where the <extValue> element provides a signal of the lack of client
    > support along with the XML content that is initially unprocessed.  If
    > the client does decide to process the XML content systematically, the
    > additional sentence can provide guidance to not open up a security
    > hole.  Do you believe this will help?  Do you have any additional
    > recommended text?

    I have nothing further to recommend, and I do think it will help -- if
    at least to show that it was thought about, and that the "nothing new
    here" statement isn't just perfunctory.  Thanks.

    Barry