Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks-03

Flemming Andreasen <> Tue, 07 May 2019 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5025512023C; Tue, 7 May 2019 14:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j5VRvgr4H1L6; Tue, 7 May 2019 14:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 603431201D3; Tue, 7 May 2019 14:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9242; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557264600; x=1558474200; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=4eIwiVdVFzZwkICs9bBwdF6aEDAwEwZVz8zkqtpIZa0=; b=HgZBE2uYCiRPZy8DqPEPOFdKvJy/vgkwya5WN6D9PcHH4bgU31I9Yd9a tPnaQoEdHjiD+TaxiQxo6LlVr91fqlvHRmlouAQzGibWbrn1Hmx5e7msQ zS5Ab0BzIFHv++Egh2PRxBjB3rHMzsx9q86+iFB8vwUp73y/eAZba+JIX E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,443,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="272845788"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 07 May 2019 21:29:59 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x47LTwea029359; Tue, 7 May 2019 21:29:58 GMT
To: Martin Thomson <>, Bo Burman <>, mmusic <>, Jon Peterson <>, Cullen Jennings <>, "'Eric Rescorla'" <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Flemming Andreasen <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 17:29:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------68035234D0AB372B7D6213C1"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 21:30:03 -0000

On 5/6/19 12:53 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> (I apologize for errors in adjusting quoting, our MTAs seem incompatible somehow.)
> On Sat, May 4, 2019, at 07:28, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
>>>    Or 3PCC can be used without SIP identity (maybe the WebRTC identity
>>> is used) and the attack would be relevant.
>> Can WebRTC identity be used with regular SIP ?
>> That's not the impression I got from
>> (where
>> WebRTC identity is defined), nor do I think it should be since that
>> would:
>>   a) Be redundant with the SIP Identiy information defined in RFC 8224
>> and hence require further treatment in terms of how you deal with
>> discrepancies between the two.
>>   b) Conflate session signaling (SIP) with media signaling (SDP).
> These are reasons for not using WebRTC Identity in regular SIP, but I don't believe the two to be *fundamentally* incompatible.  The latter is perhaps a good argument against the use of WebRTC Identity at all, but the split between media and session signaling and the relationship of each with the security properties of the system is probably a topic of discussion for another draft.  We're just trying to work out how to proceed with this little piece.
>>   In any case, this is probably something that should be clarified in
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18 (might as well do that now, since
>> you will ultimately get an SDP designated expert review from me on that
>> one that will ask the same).
> I'm sure that there's something worth saying there.  Not sure what other think, but I wouldn't expressly prohibit the use of the two in combination.  I would reduce this to pointing out that there is a potential for disagreement between the two that would be bad.
>>> It might be good to categorically say that 3PCC - as described in RFC 3725 - is incompatible with RFC 8224.  Would that help clarify this bit?
>>   I believe so.
> I've updated the PR with the following text (being the entire section on 3PCC):
> ---8<---
> Third-party call control (3PCC) {{?RFC3725}} is a technique where a signaling
> peer establishes a call that is terminated by a different entity.  This attack
> is very similar to the 3PCC technique, except where the TLS peers are aware of
> the use of 3PCC.
> 3PCC as described in RFC 3725 is incompatible with SIP identity {{?SIP-ID}} as
> SIP Identity relies on creating a binding between SIP requests and SDP.  The
> controller is the only entity that generates SIP requests in RFC 3725.
> Therefore, in a 3PCC context, only the use of the `fingerprint` attribute
> without additional bindings or WebRTC identity {{?WEBRTC-SEC}} is possible.
> For 3PCC to work with the proposed mechanisms, TLS peers need to be aware of the
> signaling so that they can correctly generate and check the TLS extensions.  For
> a connection to be successfully established, a 3PCC controller needs to either
> forward SDP without modification, or to avoid modifications to `fingerprint`,
> `tls-id`, and `identity` attributes.  A controller that follows the best
> practices in RFC 3725 is expected to forward SDP without modification, thus
> ensuring the integrity of these attributes.
> It is understood that this technique will prevent the use of 3PCC if peers have
> different views of the involved identities, or the value of SDP `tls-id`
> attributes.
> ---8<---
> How does that work for you?
That looks good to me - thx Martin

-- Flemming
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> .