Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 06 March 2019 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 1CE281275E9; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:41:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=RqGYtdt2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=hr1koPD+
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 j0hPJqc1s7xf; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B94FE1277D6; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7EA26824; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:41:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:41:15 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=a uwESmY8YHqyWD7p7Z3cPVgLnDUeKLKSzgqDrmggw5M=; b=RqGYtdt2EqFdt+WUF 3PU/H2MFBoij9MLI5weJdQgL+64jD0KZLHidd/QBC17/XGFNEePpeWl1tZighdAv N4p0rDu1tS5zUtlGTAvsA+m29S2c8a7uq+HnaZZpX/U9Rj4Z8LAlNCm2Kfm/QBtW YRWjFbCjX/Su5teVVXtjRWzbIHhPfmvFc+yAXPWmUIZqbEmhxEp2cZwO+yDvlq4S t8iCyC+9YU5n0k6QTEIwTF1q4qeBbd1PIZmZfujbeyv9FHSFoUwejRaHW8AIuv5R OVvI0ocvAPcx7ik7T9jNyUzD+SAKpoNJzdlyK08MwHtFvuO8FGoKEf3O0zJxWoC+ 6B06g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=auwESmY8YHqyWD7p7Z3cPVgLnDUeKLKSzgqDrmggw 5M=; b=hr1koPD+Q29DrQdOvVdEc2wMKJn8f1QyfItlU/4OtpiqgLu1O4Da7xknM 3MrP7mIcOHCYGyPFjm8HK75Y2iXBH/qJh9h5kLENTgZfmY97cppQKCd37WXz+Wyw H6xIczK7aS97//L75PISnoU69/IDNqiREhKq4Uwymmyii54s6woFbzJGOLiwhJvB h9XuUROzR0OkhNvgsH4NgpBXnwLTBI7EcC4fiYFHnHYfQs4mNMDtl0S7Ic5GHrDd 4OAHiUWr5Uc68y74NvboS8NDsttCn9TiIDnJYvJ7m/PdCnijoeR6gC8K+fioPX0B KI4Vvcv/cvlBdper1hqnrbhsZ7A6w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:G-p_XJxRTk8chARNuI6z0cZtO0OFHWMCDGGQ_FE-JlaitbUKGf8AyQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrfeeigddukecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrih hnpegvvhhilhdrohhrghdpghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhivghtfhdrohhrghdpvgigrghm phhlvgdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdejgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhi iigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:G-p_XJJmXcZpwOeQG-tuWf7qCC3Ez9BxpB-AKmmcKKcuEVqykyywAw> <xmx:G-p_XArfW-FS8ouzeTDpdbH53I7ki3JP5kUz51O4FP5KWuxRA_LOiQ> <xmx:G-p_XHuqaa9B9DdSAKgyzL4nDAB__t-wbactWj3jzVXqPXrwYxXSiQ> <xmx:G-p_XFtsVtOy2qt5QGEzAJrvcLYowIKRJ-bqej80q8TAHdPxiUm7OQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.74]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7FB83E46AB; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:41:14 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <BD938BD8-7764-4B5B-8F74-01FC0834DFC1@sn3rd.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:41:13 -0500
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch.all@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FDE33F8D-301F-4CFC-92CE-94EF85AF90A8@cooperw.in>
References: <154973824800.29421.10047365396889314189@ietfa.amsl.com> <BD938BD8-7764-4B5B-8F74-01FC0834DFC1@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/rlwVr0fbl8XjRz9j5PJv9HCPLNk>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:41:19 -0000

Russ, thank you for your review. Sean, thank you for your responses. I entered a Yes ballot.

The use of “settings” reads ok to me.

Alissa

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:09 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>; wrote:
> 
> I generated PR for these:
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/security-arch/pull/85
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2019, at 13:50, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review result: Almost Ready
>> 
>> 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 treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>> 
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18
>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>> Review Date: 2019-02-07
>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-15
>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>> 
>> Summary: Almost Ready
>> 
>> 
>> Major Concerns:
>> 
>> Section 4.1 says "... preferably over TLS ...", but it does not tell
>> what the consequences are if TLS is not used.  Since this is the
>> security architecture, I would expect these consequences to be
>> described.
> 
> There is s9.1 that addresses this :)
> 
>> Section 4.2: Please add a sentence or two that defines Interactive
>> Connectivity Establishment (ICE) data and non-ICE data.
> 
> Since s4.2 of this document points to s4.2 of security-arch and there’s an entire subsection on ICE I am hoping that the references are enough.
> 
>> Section 6.5 includes a contradiction.  One place it says, " MUST NOT
>> negotiate cipher suites with NULL encryption", and another place it
>> says, "if Null ciphers are used ...".  Please make these consistent.
> 
> I deleted the display requirements section because I think the prohibiting on negotiating NULL drives the display requirement.
> 
>> Section 6.5 requires implementation of certificate fingerprints or a
>> Short Authentication String (SAS).  Please add a sentence to tell how
>> they are used to provide out-of-band verification.  Without such a
>> sentence, it is easy to imagine an implementation with a UI that is
>> too awkward to actually get the information on the screen while the
>> call is in progress.
> 
> Would something like this work:
> 
>  These are compared by the peers to authenticate one another.
> 
>> Section 10: since this is a standards track document, the IESG should
>> be responsible for this new codepoint, not the document author.
> 
> changed
> 
>> Minor Concerns:
>> 
>> Section 3.1 uses https://www.evil.org/ as an example.  However, this is
>> a registered domain.  It would be better to follow the IESG statement on
>> examples: https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/statement/examples.html.
> 
> I was really hoping a Dr. Evil included their info the DNS.  It wasn’t there.
> I changed to http://example.org
> 
>> Section 6.2 uses customerservice@ford.com  as an example.  Of course,
>> ford.com is a registered domain. It would be better to follow the IESG
>> statement on examples (the URL is above).
> 
> Changed it to customerservice@example.org
> 
>> Section 7 uses Poker Galaxy  as an example.  Of course, this is a real
>> web site. It would be better to follow the IESG statement on examples
>> (the URL is above).  It seems best to use the same names here as are
>> used in Section 7.2.
> 
> I changed to “a poker site” to match that phrase, which is used in the 1st para of that section.
> 
>> Nits:
>> 
>> Section 1 includes: "... SDP-based like SIP."  Please add a reference
>> for SDP.
> 
> I have to admit that I’d probably be confused if there was a reference to SDP after "SDP-based like SIP [RFC4566]” and it reads a little awkward if we do "SDP-based [RFC4566[ like SIP.  RFC 4566 is referred to in s3 when the SDP attribute is defined and there’s a reference tor SIP, which also refers to SDP,  earlier.  I tend think the reader won’t be that confused ;)
> 
>> Section 4.1: s/ permissions till later/ permissions until later/
> 
> Fixed
> 
>> Section 4.4: please add a reference for STUN.
> 
> The reference is a sentence later.
> 
>> Section 6.2: s/(though see Section 6.3/(See Section 6.3/
> 
> fixed
> 
>> Section 6.4: please do not enclose the note is '[' and ']'.  Avoid
>> confusion with reference syntax.  One solution is to put the note at
>> the end of the paragraph.
> 
> fixed (I just remove the [ ]).
> 
>> Section 6.4: s/non-turn candidates/non-TURN candidates/
> 
> fixed
> 
>> Section 6.5: the phrase "Implementations MUST implement" seems awkward.
>> Perhaps "Implementations MUST support".  This appears several places.
> 
> fixed
> 
>> Section 6.5 ought to begin with "All data channels MUST be secured via
>> DTLS."  This appears half way through the section, but the material that
>> comes before is really in support of this sentence.
> 
> Eh - when I read that I thought - generic requirements and then ones for media and the data channels.
> 
>> Section 8.1 discusses "<user>@<domain>", but the discussion of "user"
>> (note the quotes) and the discussion of domain (note the absense of
>> quotes) are using different conventions.  Please use quotes in both
>> places or neither place.
> 
> I think I fixed this.
> 
>> There are places in this document where "settings" is confusing.  It is
>> unclear whether the word is referring to configuration settings or it
>> is referring to an environment or situation.  Please look at each use
>> of this word and consider alternatives.
> 
> I’ll leave this for ekr.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb