Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 18 April 2016 19:39 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B7C12DAE1; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kePOVvubPnOz; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4453F12D615; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (ronin.smetech.net [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B465F2404B; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OOX9o7yqYHVl; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:23:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-51-128-219.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.128.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5740F2401F; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:38:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:35:57 -0400
Message-Id: <D8017772-5403-4C20-B69A-D6BB841A26E2@vigilsec.com>
To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn.all@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IsuuWpK7SG8k34BEzUQGT22Z99M>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:39:12 -0000
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2016-04-18 IETF LC End Date: 2016-04-21 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns: In several places, the document says: "These confidentiality protections do not apply to data that is sent using data channels." It took me a moment to figure out what was being said. I think it would really help the reader to say at the beginning something like: "The confidentiality protections ensure that media is protected from other applications, but the confidentiality protections do not extend to traffic on the data channels." Section 3 includes this paragraph: Generally speaking, ensuring confidentiality depends on authenticating the communications peer. This mechanism explicitly does not define a specific authentication method; a WebRTC endpoint that accepts a session with this ALPN identifier MUST respect confidentiality no matter what identity is attributed to a peer. I understand why authentication and confidentiality are often used together. However, it is very unclear to me why there ought to be a linkage between c-webrtc and authentication since this service really is only a promise to not share media with other applications. A similar discussion in the security considerations talks about assurance that the "media was delivered to the user that was authenticated." Again, if there is no authentication, I do not see how the assurance associated with this mechanism changes. Nits: After reading the whole document, I went back and read the Abstract again. I do not think it captures the real intent of the document. I have tried to provide an alternative, but it probably needs further work: This document specifies two Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for use with Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) and Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC). With the first label, a DTLS session is used to establish keys for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP), known as DTLS-SRTP. The second label also uses DTLS-SRTP, but the peers also agree to maintain the confidentiality of the media by not sharing it with other applications.
- Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03 Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-rtcweb… Jari Arkko
- Re: Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03 Martin Thomson