Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-03

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Sun, 11 December 2011 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20A321F848E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.356
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-HqukGHZ9hn for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.20.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A7821F848C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:35:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-177-208-97.range86-177.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.177.208.97]) by c2bthomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id FOO11707; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:35:47 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <007301ccb83c$4d64c520$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "IETF Apps Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <4EE50109.2030201@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:37:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4EE51423.0011, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2011.12.11.194215:17:7.586, ip=86.177.208.97, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODY_SIZE_4000_4999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.4EE51424.0093, ss=1, re=0.000, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:35:53 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: <draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis@tools.ietf.org>rg>; "IETF Apps Discuss"
<apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:14 PM

> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
> this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-03
> Title: Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages
> Reviewer: Julian Reschke
> Review Date: 2011-12-11
> IETF Last Call Date: not last-called yet
> IESG Telechat Date: -
>
> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as as a Proposed
> Standard and should be revised before publication
>
> NOTE: I have *not* reviewed any security-related aspects.
>
>
> Major Issues:
>
> -
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> As pointed out in Section 3, this protocol really (ab)uses HTTP as a
> simple transport, and uses only a tiny subset of HTTP. This is properly
> explained, and the decision to use a custom port number makes sense.
>
> What I'm missing here are a few things that would probably make it
> easier to understand what's actually required:
>
> 1) Does a RID endpoint need to implement all REQUIRED HTTP/1.1 features?
> For instance, does it need to understand Expect: 100-continue, and does
> it have to support GET and HEAD on "/"? Are there requirements for
> request URIs other than "/"?
>
> 2) What's the Internet Media Type to be used with RID payloads? Is it
> defined? If no, why not? Is it required to be used?
>
> 3) How do retries work when a request fails? Is the use of POST here
> idempotent so that the request can be repeated?
>
> 4) How does matching between request and callback work?
>
> 5) It might be a good idea to add a complete example of an exchange that
> uses the callback pattern.
>
> Also, in Section 4:
>
>     For transport confidentiality, identification, and authentication,
>     TLS with mutual authentication MUST be used to secure the HTTP
>     connection as in [RFC2818].  The session MUST use non-NULL
>     ciphersuites for authentication, integrity, and confidentiality;
>     sessions MAY be renegotiated within these constraints.  Although TLS
>     implementations typically support the older SSL protocol, a RID peer
>     MUST NOT request, offer, or use any version of SSL, or any version of
>     TLS prior to 1.1 [RFC4346], due to known security vulnerabilities in
>     prior versions of the protocol; see Appendix E of [RFC5246] for more.
>
> This is a bit confusing because RFC5246 obsoletes RFC4346; there's
> probably a good reason for what it says here, but it might be good to
> explain what it is.

Julian

It makes sense because RFC4346 is the formal definition of TLS1.1,
loopholes and all, whereas RFC5246 defines TLS1.2.  I think it
difficult to add any explanation without this becoming a TLS 101.

Tom Petch

> Nits:
>
>     RID systems SHOULD NOT use TCP port 443 (the standard port for HTTP
>     over TLS/SSL) for RID messages; this avoids posting RID messages to
>     web servers that may not handle RID messages correctly.
>
> Actually, it does not, because a web server may run on the RID port
> (4590) as well. If there's a security concern with the protocol with
> respect to generic web servers, it should be pointed out (and
> potentially fixed).
>
> Abstract:
>
>     (...).  This document updates the previous [RFC6046] to
>     change the intended status to Proposed Standard, and to reference the
>     updated RID specification.
>
> This is procedural and should be moved to the Introduction (this will
> also fix the issue of having a reference in the Abstract).
>
>     among members in a RID consortium.  This document specifies the
>     transport of RID messages within HTTP [RFC2616] Request and Response
>     messages transported over TLS [RFC5246] (herein, HTTP/TLS).  Note
>
> Missing "." after [RFC2616].
>
> 1.2. Normative and Informative sections
>
>     Section 3, Section 4, and Section 5 of this document are normative;
>     the remainder of the document is informative.
>
> I don't think is is needed here.
>
> References:
>
> draft-moriarty-mile-rfc6045-bis-02: [2011-08-27 ID-Exists Replaced] (not
> active)
> RFC4346: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5246; maybe this one is
> informative?
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>