[rtcweb] #8: Section 4.3.1: PFS
"rtcweb issue tracker" <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sat, 16 February 2013 22:14 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C705621F8A2F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:14:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eYEMUHB7lLMc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EEA21F8A25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55148 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1U6q1F-0001YG-Rl; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:14:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: rtcweb issue tracker <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-security@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
X-Trac-Project: rtcweb
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:14:05 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/8
Message-ID: <066.eb6ee6956971e989c541ee81e80414ca@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-security@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: ekr@rtfm.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20130216221409.14EEA21F8A25@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:14:08 -0800
Resent-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] #8: Section 4.3.1: PFS
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:14:09 -0000
#8: Section 4.3.1: PFS
It is this consideration that makes an
automatic, public key-based key exchange mechanism imperative for
RTC-Web (this is a good idea for any communications security system)
and this mechanism SHOULD provide perfect forward secrecy (PFS).
[BA] Do we mean "SHOULD support" PFS or "SHOULD use"? I don't believe
that DTLS/SRTP-EKT provides PFS. Also, is there any implication that the
user should be able to somehow influence whether PFS is required or not?
--
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-rtcweb-
bernard_aboba@hotmail.com | security@tools.ietf.org
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: milestone1
Component: security | Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/8>
rtcweb <http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/>
- [rtcweb] #8: Section 4.3.1: PFS rtcweb issue tracker