Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <> Mon, 17 October 2016 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2574129430 for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 23:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.941
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WSvh0wSmahnV for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 23:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 381BD129409 for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 23:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=137180; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476684495; x=1477894095; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=WrBqMlRo+FIcoLlnj3e4mTcpSEvCLCePhnzoKi7pw+U=; b=RjBtbLTdNfOr/jOTW+GG5HoyTiCalRAJEjSLOAYb9y/Q+hFDe1VB+9z3 Bq+uEk6k9hE5DIIfIxjCF+dtwI3hoU3wa1Df1v5PL2o8IaIT35RE3Hr5z kYfabwPrmjZoRJPV0rSBtXLxPgCnqzaDjW2KtPsP6NMu+RZlHrl241TFH M=;
X-Files: Diff_ draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10.txt - draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-11.txt.html, draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-11.txt : 69180, 27638
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,356,1473120000"; d="txt'?html'217?scan'217,208,217";a="158652820"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Oct 2016 06:08:12 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9H68BtI003295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:08:12 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:08:10 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:08:10 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10
Thread-Index: AQHSKDzWFP80rM3CWUi/TJAnzwnmUg==
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:08:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_D42A685A6C34Brmohanrciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:08:20 -0000


Sorry for getting back late on this. We have addressed the comments given
by Dan. Please find the diffs attached.
I will publish this in a few days if I don¹t receive any further feedback.


-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <> on behalf of "Dan Wing (dwing)"
Date: Sunday, 7 August 2016 at 12:01 AM
To: ""
<>, ""
Cc: "" <>,
"" <>
Subject: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review
of	draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10

>My review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10 as part of SDP
>directorate review.
>Section 6.1, "Transport Negotiation" is unclear if it is overriding the
>port handling described in draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05, or merely
>re-stating the port handling described in
>draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05.  That is, the text is not clear if the
>port in the wss-uri override what is in the 'm' line?  I suggest using
>exactly the same phrasing in both documents.  This is stated clearly in
>Section 6.2, and should only be stated once in this document -- or
>perhaps just defer to what draft-ietf-bcpbis-dsp-ws-uri says and not
>attempt to re-discuss it here in this document would be best, no?
>Section 7 seems pretty duplicative of draft-ietf-bcpbis-dsp-ws-uri, too;
>which document is normative where the text disagrees, and if the text is
>word-for-word identical, what purpose is served to repeat it?
>nits:  Section 4.1 should clarify that "bFcP" is compared
>case-insensitive, which we all know, but bears repeating.
>Section 8:
>"   When a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a BFCP WebSocket server, it
>   SHOULD use TCP/WSS as its transport.  The WebSocket client SHOULD
>   inspect the TLS certificate offered by the server and verify that it
>   is valid."
>"Is valid" is too vague.  Please add citation to RFC7525, if that is
>appropriate.  Or if RFC7525's procedures are inappropriate, detail what
>steps are performed to determine validity.  It seems the a=fingerprint is
>*not* supposed to be used, right?  Rather, chasing the certificate chain
>is used against the FQDN in the wss-uri.
>Section 8:
>"   Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] states that BFCP clients
>   and floor control servers SHOULD authenticate each other prior to
>   accepting messages, and RECOMMENDS that mutual TLS/DTLS
>   authentication be used."
>"   In order to authorize the WebSocket connection, the BFCP WebSocket
>   server MAY inspect any cookie [RFC6265] headers present in the HTTP
>   GET request."
>This "MAY" to check cookies is too weak, when the recommendation in
>ietf-bcpbis-rfc4582bis was mutual authentication! The server needs to
>better authorize the client than just a MAY!  I don't understand how this
>document can suggest reducing a SHOULD to a MAY, when we're talking of
>authorizing and authenticating clients.
>bfcpbis mailing list