Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-11

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
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 6420F12EB11 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:24:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
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 j3Yxc1HOzN34 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B1FF1200ED for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id x9so4314459qkf.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:24:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xWLbt88AkC3sznlMnrKlC7vCE67xYnr8vo0ZFCgJgMc=; b=ejIKBEchjc7OoG8UAtNFxzAkYXTWDGCpmXOzcmcGvxBZgAtTzKHy+7DmYrc8U2MOJI bXZ+eO228p0yzWNjej+iA/J9SuaDseGnJW1m9wS0NadPZjig2QQcxjl4I4M5WiLEFwpt tOTMMIRA+/l2zWefezUFQPsPnECVSgFCb/r7g=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xWLbt88AkC3sznlMnrKlC7vCE67xYnr8vo0ZFCgJgMc=; b=h39kfGKfsMoyb87/Fx9uMnaJbOEvPlKlmtkGXLoNXBYSXYQAP5Pp9kltppZHNWdEXB ePuv0zQzd2dQ1vwjhNxWVbaISsP99RXiM35oC9UJoRXohF2bQN6fzQ0AG4G0sBHJTdkq vlVILWqslLaKtnlWxz3A8r9ofOABHXBPDVl50/UNjNSZ1sxX7/Q0SPFtTiFmTL5FTbJD w3uicojSJ/hnrQ25qH5GgzQ2vx3aeKgrnDYfe1WOPvGHrGOzD1KMqfqmwW3r6l0UbLEw xEVsWz/u46fraDseEzTs8zYM/SxaXxP2qgoIh5vK7hBKgqsLbOYmh7y5COSd0dKPP0JU 9dZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYZ074wz917uHDhCh1idf8Xet408BkDPHjwY4mOs2XofF42jr1F gQuOxNaWkS5DaBpTU+VpzBr1lg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaXtRvRMwYklE+MeA8tNvBTGfxDi75F/a4+U48XP8b/3TL5qZ55ZW4/qlrZzkx30oRyH67rnw==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7883:: with SMTP id t125mr4043748qkc.201.1550172239064; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.0.18] ([96.231.217.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c10sm1833813qtm.64.2019.02.14.11.23.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:23:57 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <155000069929.8344.2037971001030338378@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:23:56 -0500
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-security.all@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C77E79CD-478D-4EF8-8C5A-59A33832580D@sn3rd.com>
References: <155000069929.8344.2037971001030338378@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/YvRPiDCsN4Doc-CLnhZu6KT1F8s>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-11
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:24:03 -0000

Hi! Doc Shepherd here ;)

> On Feb 12, 2019, at 14:44, Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joe Clarke
> Review result: Not Ready
> 
> I have been assigned to review this document on behalf of the Ops directorate. 
> In general, I found the document well-written, but the reason I marked it as
> not ready as I was confused as to its standards track trajectory.  I do not see
> any kind of inter-operable standard being defined here.  On my reading --
> before I noticed it was standards track -- it felt informational.  While it
> does set out a threat model for the browser, I struggle to see how that needs
> to be standardized.

The rationale I provided in the Shepherd write was this:
   This draft is bound standards track because it includes all of the WebRTC
   security considerations and will referred to from all WebRTC WG drafts.

There are also 8 2119-MUSTs/MUST NOTs is the document that affect browser behavior, which (I think) gets it over the informational level hurdle.

> On that threat model note, the abstract indicates that the WebRTC threat model
> will be laid out, but section 3 defines a more general browser threat model.

It does, but the 1st sentence explains why they are the same.  I guess we could rename the section, but it’s just a layer of indirection.

> Beyond those items, I noticed various nits and other small items when reading
> the document.  Most broadly, I feel this document would benefit from a
> terminology section to define acronyms such as ICE, TURN, STUN, VoIP, etc. 
> Additionally, in section 3.1, the document refers to "scripts" in a general
> way.  While the implication is JavaScript code that will run in a browser, I
> think that kind of context setting might be made more explicit in a terminology
> section.
> 
> Other nits are mentioned below on a section-by-section basis.

I addressed these in the following PR:
https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/security/pull/13

> Section 1:
> 
> s/implementated/implemented/
> 
> ===
> 
> Section 3.2:
> 
> s/provide a escape hatch/provide an escape hatch/
> 
> ===
> 
> Section 4.2:
> 
> s/signficant/significant/
> 
> ===
> 
> Section 4.2.3:
> 
> s/ threats is less severe/threats are less severe/
> 
> ===
> 
> Section 4.3:
> 
> s/ The calling service is is/The calling service is/
> 
> ===
> 
> Section 4.3.2.1:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>  (a) the browser to trusted UI to provide the name and
> 
> I don't grok this sentence fragment.  There seems to be a verb missing, and I'm
> not sure what your intent is here.

I suggest “the browser has trusted UI …”. if that’s wrong I can amend the PR.

> ===
> 
> Section 4.3.2.2:
> 
> s/e.g., read aloud over the the voice/e.g., read aloud over the voice/
> 
> s/However, it it is well-known/However, it is well-known/