Re: [Gen-art] [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 06 March 2019 15:41 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE281275E9; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:41:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=RqGYtdt2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=hr1koPD+
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 j0hPJqc1s7xf; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B94FE1277D6; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7EA26824; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:41:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:41:15 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=a uwESmY8YHqyWD7p7Z3cPVgLnDUeKLKSzgqDrmggw5M=; b=RqGYtdt2EqFdt+WUF 3PU/H2MFBoij9MLI5weJdQgL+64jD0KZLHidd/QBC17/XGFNEePpeWl1tZighdAv N4p0rDu1tS5zUtlGTAvsA+m29S2c8a7uq+HnaZZpX/U9Rj4Z8LAlNCm2Kfm/QBtW YRWjFbCjX/Su5teVVXtjRWzbIHhPfmvFc+yAXPWmUIZqbEmhxEp2cZwO+yDvlq4S t8iCyC+9YU5n0k6QTEIwTF1q4qeBbd1PIZmZfujbeyv9FHSFoUwejRaHW8AIuv5R OVvI0ocvAPcx7ik7T9jNyUzD+SAKpoNJzdlyK08MwHtFvuO8FGoKEf3O0zJxWoC+ 6B06g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=auwESmY8YHqyWD7p7Z3cPVgLnDUeKLKSzgqDrmggw 5M=; b=hr1koPD+Q29DrQdOvVdEc2wMKJn8f1QyfItlU/4OtpiqgLu1O4Da7xknM 3MrP7mIcOHCYGyPFjm8HK75Y2iXBH/qJh9h5kLENTgZfmY97cppQKCd37WXz+Wyw H6xIczK7aS97//L75PISnoU69/IDNqiREhKq4Uwymmyii54s6woFbzJGOLiwhJvB h9XuUROzR0OkhNvgsH4NgpBXnwLTBI7EcC4fiYFHnHYfQs4mNMDtl0S7Ic5GHrDd 4OAHiUWr5Uc68y74NvboS8NDsttCn9TiIDnJYvJ7m/PdCnijoeR6gC8K+fioPX0B KI4Vvcv/cvlBdper1hqnrbhsZ7A6w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:G-p_XJxRTk8chARNuI6z0cZtO0OFHWMCDGGQ_FE-JlaitbUKGf8AyQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrfeeigddukecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrih hnpegvvhhilhdrohhrghdpghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhivghtfhdrohhrghdpvgigrghm phhlvgdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdejgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhi iigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:G-p_XJJmXcZpwOeQG-tuWf7qCC3Ez9BxpB-AKmmcKKcuEVqykyywAw> <xmx:G-p_XArfW-FS8ouzeTDpdbH53I7ki3JP5kUz51O4FP5KWuxRA_LOiQ> <xmx:G-p_XHuqaa9B9DdSAKgyzL4nDAB__t-wbactWj3jzVXqPXrwYxXSiQ> <xmx:G-p_XFtsVtOy2qt5QGEzAJrvcLYowIKRJ-bqej80q8TAHdPxiUm7OQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.74]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7FB83E46AB; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:41:14 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <BD938BD8-7764-4B5B-8F74-01FC0834DFC1@sn3rd.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:41:13 -0500
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch.all@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FDE33F8D-301F-4CFC-92CE-94EF85AF90A8@cooperw.in>
References: <154973824800.29421.10047365396889314189@ietfa.amsl.com> <BD938BD8-7764-4B5B-8F74-01FC0834DFC1@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Q_2J1k1IsIu9hbhyGNqxAt7aUwU>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:41:19 -0000
Russ, thank you for your review. Sean, thank you for your responses. I entered a Yes ballot. The use of “settings” reads ok to me. Alissa > On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:09 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > I generated PR for these: > https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/security-arch/pull/85 > >> On Feb 9, 2019, at 13:50, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review result: Almost Ready >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18 >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review Date: 2019-02-07 >> IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-15 >> IESG Telechat date: unknown >> >> Summary: Almost Ready >> >> >> Major Concerns: >> >> Section 4.1 says "... preferably over TLS ...", but it does not tell >> what the consequences are if TLS is not used. Since this is the >> security architecture, I would expect these consequences to be >> described. > > There is s9.1 that addresses this :) > >> Section 4.2: Please add a sentence or two that defines Interactive >> Connectivity Establishment (ICE) data and non-ICE data. > > Since s4.2 of this document points to s4.2 of security-arch and there’s an entire subsection on ICE I am hoping that the references are enough. > >> Section 6.5 includes a contradiction. One place it says, " MUST NOT >> negotiate cipher suites with NULL encryption", and another place it >> says, "if Null ciphers are used ...". Please make these consistent. > > I deleted the display requirements section because I think the prohibiting on negotiating NULL drives the display requirement. > >> Section 6.5 requires implementation of certificate fingerprints or a >> Short Authentication String (SAS). Please add a sentence to tell how >> they are used to provide out-of-band verification. Without such a >> sentence, it is easy to imagine an implementation with a UI that is >> too awkward to actually get the information on the screen while the >> call is in progress. > > Would something like this work: > > These are compared by the peers to authenticate one another. > >> Section 10: since this is a standards track document, the IESG should >> be responsible for this new codepoint, not the document author. > > changed > >> Minor Concerns: >> >> Section 3.1 uses https://www.evil.org/ as an example. However, this is >> a registered domain. It would be better to follow the IESG statement on >> examples: https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/statement/examples.html. > > I was really hoping a Dr. Evil included their info the DNS. It wasn’t there. > I changed to http://example.org > >> Section 6.2 uses customerservice@ford.com as an example. Of course, >> ford.com is a registered domain. It would be better to follow the IESG >> statement on examples (the URL is above). > > Changed it to customerservice@example.org > >> Section 7 uses Poker Galaxy as an example. Of course, this is a real >> web site. It would be better to follow the IESG statement on examples >> (the URL is above). It seems best to use the same names here as are >> used in Section 7.2. > > I changed to “a poker site” to match that phrase, which is used in the 1st para of that section. > >> Nits: >> >> Section 1 includes: "... SDP-based like SIP." Please add a reference >> for SDP. > > I have to admit that I’d probably be confused if there was a reference to SDP after "SDP-based like SIP [RFC4566]” and it reads a little awkward if we do "SDP-based [RFC4566[ like SIP. RFC 4566 is referred to in s3 when the SDP attribute is defined and there’s a reference tor SIP, which also refers to SDP, earlier. I tend think the reader won’t be that confused ;) > >> Section 4.1: s/ permissions till later/ permissions until later/ > > Fixed > >> Section 4.4: please add a reference for STUN. > > The reference is a sentence later. > >> Section 6.2: s/(though see Section 6.3/(See Section 6.3/ > > fixed > >> Section 6.4: please do not enclose the note is '[' and ']'. Avoid >> confusion with reference syntax. One solution is to put the note at >> the end of the paragraph. > > fixed (I just remove the [ ]). > >> Section 6.4: s/non-turn candidates/non-TURN candidates/ > > fixed > >> Section 6.5: the phrase "Implementations MUST implement" seems awkward. >> Perhaps "Implementations MUST support". This appears several places. > > fixed > >> Section 6.5 ought to begin with "All data channels MUST be secured via >> DTLS." This appears half way through the section, but the material that >> comes before is really in support of this sentence. > > Eh - when I read that I thought - generic requirements and then ones for media and the data channels. > >> Section 8.1 discusses "<user>@<domain>", but the discussion of "user" >> (note the quotes) and the discussion of domain (note the absense of >> quotes) are using different conventions. Please use quotes in both >> places or neither place. > > I think I fixed this. > >> There are places in this document where "settings" is confusing. It is >> unclear whether the word is referring to configuration settings or it >> is referring to an environment or situation. Please look at each use >> of this word and consider alternatives. > > I’ll leave this for ekr. > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-r… Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Sean Turner
- Re: [Gen-art] [rtcweb] Genart last call review of… Alissa Cooper