Re: [bfcpbis] TCP/TLS: Who is TLS server when the connection goes down and is re-established?

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Christer, not only did you discover the issue - you also provided
the fix (and text for it). That solves what is currently missing in the
draft and in RFC 4582.

I will add your text, or at least a very similar version, to the upcoming
version of the draft.

-- Tom


On 21 January 2014 15:10, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 1/20/14 8:44 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  Some initial text proposal:
>>>>
>>>> "If the TCP connection is lost, the "active" endpoint is responsible
>>>> for re-establishing the TCP connection.
>>>>
>>>> Unless a new TLS session is negotiated, subsequent SDP Offers and
>>>> Answers will not impact the previously negotiated TLS roles."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is the passive endpoint expected to listen for the connection attempt at
>>> all times, or when it has noticed that the old connection is lost, or only
>>> when
>>> there has been a new O/A? (It is kind of a waste to maintain a listener
>>> when you have an active connection and aren't expecting more.
>>> And it is asking for trouble, since you might get a new connection when
>>> you think the old one is still functional.)
>>>
>>
>> If a TCP connection has been established, I think it is enough to listen
>> for the connection when it has noticed that the old connection is lost. I
>> assume both endpoints would detect that more or less at the same time, or?
>>
>> If a TCP connection has NOT been established, one would listen only when
>> there has been a O/A used to negotiate the TCP connection.
>>
>
> WFM.
>
>
>  I realize this is old stuff, but I'm surprised that it didn't follow
>>> comedia about all of this, including who is active.
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure I understand. Comedia IS used to indicate who is active.
>> However, comedia is NOT used to indicate who is TLS client/server.
>>
>
> OK.
>
>
>  Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>>> Lähettäjä: bfcpbis [mailto:[e-mail]] Puolesta Christer
>>> Holmberg
>>> Lähetetty: 16. tammikuuta 2014 21:36
>>> Vastaanottaja: Tom Kristensen
>>> Kopio: [e-mail]
>>> Aihe: Re: [bfcpbis] TCP/TLS: Who is TLS server when the connection goes
>>> down and is re-established?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>>  I realize the following comes late in the process, and I apologize
>>>>> if it has been discussed, but it is related to something which just
>>>>> has recently popped up in 3GPP, and it's not addressed in the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not too late, since we are still not finished! Anyway, the TCP/TLS
>>>> connection reuse is not altered while extending BFCP to support
>>>> unreliable transport. Any fixes now must be backwards compatible in
>>>> some way.
>>>>
>>>> That said and based on what I have seen from different vendors, most
>>>> of them still use TCP (without TLS) :)
>>>>
>>>> So, at least if we are changing anything to solve these issues, we
>>>> should add an informational note indicating this is a change where
>>>> legacy, pure RFC 4582 implementations might differ in behaviour...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not suggesting to change anything - I am suggesting to specify
>>> something which is currently unspecified :)
>>>
>>>  By the way: How these issues was solved in 3GPP are along the lines of
>>>> what you propose below?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have had some discussions in 3GPP, and there are some text
>>> suggestions for the upcoming meeting next week.
>>>
>>> However, the discussions so far have been mostly about Q2. Q1 came up on
>>> a mailing list just this week, and whill be discussed at the 3GPP meeting
>>> next week.
>>>
>>>  Section 7 says the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> "For a TCP/TLS connection established using an SDP
>>>>>
>>>>> offer/answer exchange [7], the answerer (which may be the client or
>>>>>
>>>>> the floor control server) always acts as the TLS server."
>>>>>
>>>>> Q1:
>>>>>
>>>>> Assume the TCP/TLS connection, for whatever reason, goes down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I assume that whoever endpoint is "active" will most likely try
>>>>> to re-establish the TCP connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, if the "active" endpoint doesn't send an Offer (i.e. it simply
>>>>> tries to re-establish the TCP connection based on the previously
>>>>> negotiated SDP information), who will act as TLS server? There is no
>>>>> Answerer.
>>>>>
>>>>> One alternative would be to mandate the sending of an Offer when the
>>>>> TCP/TLS connection is re-established. Then it would be clear who is
>>>>> Offerer, and who is Answerer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another alternative would be to say that whoever was previously
>>>>> Answerer will act as TLS server.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not too fond of yet another re-INVITE being mandated, so if we
>>>> will fix this issue mandating the previous answerer to be the TLS
>>>> server would be my preference.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming that, then my follow-up question is:
>>>
>>> When you say "previous answerer", do you refer to the answerer in the
>>> latest Offer/Answer transaction, OR the answerer in the last Offer/Answer
>>> transaction that established/re-established the TCP/TLS connection (those
>>> Offer/Answer transactions may, or may not, be the same).
>>>
>>>
>>>  Q2:
>>>>>
>>>>> Assume there is an Offer/Answer transaction during the session. Now,
>>>>> the TCP/TLS connection is not affected by that, but the TLS roles
>>>>> may change (if whoever was Offerer in the previous O/A transaction is
>>>>> now Answerer).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think some wording would be needed about that also.
>>>>>
>>>>> One alternative is to say that the TLS roles may change, but that
>>>>> doesn't affect the TCP/TLS connection.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A healthy TCP/TLS connection shouldn't be affected at all, should it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct. The question is whether such Offer/Answer can affect the
>>> TCP/TLS roles - even if the TCP/TLS connection itself if not affected. That
>>> could have impact on the case in Q1, where the TCP/TLC connection goes
>>> down, and it needs to be determined who is TLS server.
>>>
>>>  However, any potential connection re-establishment will need to
>>>> monitor who was the last answerer to do the TLS initiation correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully I did understand the issue here, and added my 2 zlotys or
>>>> pence or whatever,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you did understand the issue :)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bfcpbis mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>



-- 
# Cisco                         |  http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/
## [e-mail]  |  http://www.tandberg.com
###                               |  http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/