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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: <draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis@tools.ietf.org>; "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
>
>