[bfcpbis] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-14: (with COMMENT)

["Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-14: 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-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Alexey's comment on section 8.  If fallback to HTTP
authentication happens, the implementer should be aware of the weaknesses
in HTTP basic [RFC7617] and digest [RFC7616] spelled out in the
respective security considerations sections.  The HTTPAuth WG put out a
few experimental RFCs with methods to eliminate some of the weaknesses,
like HOBA [RFC7486] that gets rid of the need for passwords.  Adding this
detail would be helpful.