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

["Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>]

Both this draft and its companion draft draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri has
been published now.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ram Mohan
Ravindranath <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:38 AM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10

>WG,
>
>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.
>
>Regards,
>Ram
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bfcpbis <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Dan Wing (dwing)"
><[e-mail]>
>Date: Sunday, 7 August 2016 at 12:01 AM
>To: "[e-mail]"
><[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
><[e-mail]>
>Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>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.
>>
>>-d
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>bfcpbis mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>