[rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for keep-alive]

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 29BEE21F8BE8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.553, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TpdT2hYdTl9I for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A3521F8BF7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=3002; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1316444981; x=1317654581; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=377aEAnClwJ10xUIwBwDskF4D0LltT9N4QXL+QOMFVI=; b=LLXxCrJWA4BStyewAvbZPVJzjIAr3ZT35WTL4zs+msEOXPiJA+uVEW0k SCkH5IxucBXn4n4kfqtMYy5SaJkb0+XCGbxCQz0Q6kjCmYV0HSTDQ03Xo U7eWhOG+4oQLBEFb3mbS/ddVWvgRtMl24TBPkfrJIfowdoaR1oVEuywrV E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApcAADxad06rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABCmEKBbIx7d4FTAQEBAQMICgEXED8MAQMCGAIEAQEBJwcZIwoJCAEBBAESCxefBwGdZ4Z4BIdvnSc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,405,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="2969599"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2011 15:09:41 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8JF9eX2010327; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:09:40 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Harald Alvestrand'" <harald@alvestrand.no>, "'Eric Rescorla'" <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB21D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648CB0@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB264@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648CEB@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB2F0@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206648D0F@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233EDB3E5@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <4E70D2E6.1000809@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBORi5NLSsztnMfkwL43p9oKG9mi6e1WWOaiafAO_DpTVg@mail.gmail.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233D45FA3@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBO9hUSYZhLrcfbaK9HLGXq-q1EvqWOy6-gAN5xom6Z2-A@mail.gmail.com> <092401cc749b$8fd64940$af82dbc0$@com> <CABcZeBPgRD6kb2gg=m9NckSa1wrzwzJS6527nYqFG34b0cjfgQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E765E4A.3050801@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4E765E4A.3050801@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:09:41 -0700
Message-ID: <0ced01cc76de$28731630$79594290$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acx2R2qXVdoY0v75RAi4W657Pzj1QQAldyUA
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] consent freshness [was RE: STUN for keep-alive]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:07:20 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 2:11 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla
> Cc: Dan Wing; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive
> 
> On 09/16/2011 08:30 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Dan Wing<dwing@cisco.com>;  wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >>> Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:32 AM
> >>> To: Christer Holmberg
> >>> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] STUN for keep-alive
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Christer Holmberg
> >>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>;  wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>> One new concern in this context is maintaining the consent
> freshness.
> >>>>> The browser needs to be sure that the recipient of traffic is
> stil
> >>> responding in a way that can't be forged. It's likely RTCP provides
> >>> this (though we'd need to analyze to be sure) but perhaps better
> would
> >>> be to mandate STUN checks
> >>>>> at enough frequency that you get some sort of level of
> freshness....
> >>> maybe every 2 minutes or something.
> >>>> Please note that the STUN keep-alives are implemented using STUN
> >>> indication messages, so there are no replies (nor does the receiver
> >>> perform an authentication check).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh... I had forgotten that.... that's not good.
> >> The RTCP receiver reports should be adequate for 'consent
> freshness', no?
> >> If I still like receiving the traffic, I'll report that I'm
> receiving it.
> >> If I have crashed or disconnected or am not listening on that port,
> I won't.
> > I believe so, though I'd have to make sure there's enough entropy.
> And of course
> > some implementations may not do RTCP...
> Depending on RTCP seems less uncomfortable with SRTP than with
> plaintext
> RTCP.
> I don't think we want to support RTCP-less applicaitons; if saying "no"
> to them helps them not occur (it doesn't always help...)

(Case in point: RTCP has long been a requirement for RTP, but 
implementation was still skipped by Cisco, and probably others.)

I don't know how much entropy Eric was looking for.  RTCP receiver
reports only echo back the SSRC, which is 32 bits and is going to
be static for the duration of each RTP session (yes, SSRC collision
could make it change.  But that is atypical.)  STUN request/response
echoes back the 96-bit transaction id, which changes as often as the
requestor likes (typically each new STUN transaction).

Which would someone skip -- skip sending/implementing RTCP for 
consent freshness, or skip sending/implementing STUN request/response 
for consent freshness?  The STUN request/response is also additional
data, whereas RTCP is something that is "already being sent" (thus
the consent freshness isn't adding more bits on the wire).

-d