[AVTCORE] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-16

Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 06 May 2021 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB743A2475; Thu, 6 May 2021 07:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: avt@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <162031178943.8783.4063437681950995450@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 07:36:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/VkgLqt8lHf5WGdi2h3-bYM9OLjE>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-16
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 14:36:30 -0000

Reviewer: Rich Salz
Review result: Ready

This review is for the benefit of the Security AD's. Nobody else should read
this. Or, if you read it, treat it as any other last call review :)

I know very little about WebRTC, AVT, etc.

I thought Section 1.2, summary of the alternatives, was great. I wish more
documents did this kind of thing. And similar for all of section 2. The details
in Section 3 about how to comply seem very clear. If I were implementing this,
I could use easily use this as a checklist and test suite. Section 3.19 is the
most important one for transport security. Not knowing the operating
environments, it seems reasonable.

The security considerations seems a little scant, given the opportunity for
privacy concerns of participants and for intruders to disrupt calls. Is it
common that the mixer is a trusted entity? A statement on that either way would
be useful.