IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [avtext] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07: (with COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 20 June 2016 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836E012D5AF for <avtext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4OUt3BLBnf4B for <avtext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 03:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3209812B02A for <avtext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 03:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17741 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2016 11:29:14 +0200
Received: from p5dec2e4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (93.236.46.79) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 20 Jun 2016 11:29:13 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <B8BB63C9-B261-4BBC-8CEE-5058010A8D8C@csperkins.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:29:13 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6BB6D77A-579F-4690-8582-A6B41A70CB4C@kuehlewind.net>
References: <20160615183734.26197.55835.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B8BB63C9-B261-4BBC-8CEE-5058010A8D8C@csperkins.org>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avtext/6HDdke2Teh8QakUcQUwzrbV4eWE>
Cc: jonathan@vidyo.com, avtext@ietf.org, avtext-chairs@ietf.org, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [avtext] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list <avtext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avtext/>
List-Post: <mailto:avtext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:29:19 -0000

Hi Colin,

see below.

> Am 16.06.2016 um 00:34 schrieb Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>:
> 
>> On 15 Jun 2016, at 19:37, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I strongly support Mirja's and Alia's discuss points and would like to
>> see more of a discussion of the capability to hide splicing in the
>> security considerations text.  My ballot would be discuss, but they
>> pulled out the relevant sections and that would be duplication.  I'd like
>> to review agreed upon text though to address these concerns.  
>> 
>> I don't like the idea of enabling a MiTM, but do see the draft talks
>> about how to protect headers when this happens and confidentiality is
>> needed as well as session protection between the endpoints and the
>> splicer (which I don't like either, but you do call out the security
>> considerations of this and that's what is needed).
> 
> The mechanism described doesn’t work unless the receiver explicitly chooses to receive media content delivered via the splicer. I agree that the draft could be more clearly written, but it doesn’t seem to be “enabling a MiTM” attack, since the receiver opts in.

This definitely need from clarification in the draft!

Mirja


> 
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> https://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email