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

Sean Turner <> Thu, 21 February 2019 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ADB128D0B for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:09:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kWGvlxttgp8L for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:09:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::841]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAAB81286D8 for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:09:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y4so29883827qtc.10 for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:09:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=s/ev7QCaEGrjfw1tD1K5+uZrBGL05XgW1UwZWCBMhaU=; b=m9BWnUQo/hmNqsoEM7fgmvbOHzcp4PCP9MLYyy2EEpUg8d5KbGOGKzlwDoI5PKbGV7 qa9oKzQ17uPP6Ol/k+DMl0iHjWmYCItxm+vnqjCx7HFyPJgzfnc166Cowym8K9dlyNKV jdxAlHnU8u0r48Oy+pa4+8hgaq76Mx0MvR5To=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=s/ev7QCaEGrjfw1tD1K5+uZrBGL05XgW1UwZWCBMhaU=; b=Nn5ugYlDeA+PncFlwPwEY4+2FZhBUfoHPyXHuVc/9ASPtEx2jK/dNOEaUSGwqgYkzG xc+WKLzHJ19toH5SVVV5lKg1eZzNI5aEmoxCj7XGWXZTzN49WwmW5izRlEhQhOBcyXp7 +cqacCAPrjdW0/HHwu3sLD/GxazhV5BsQLN9h45NLMKUUvukrXjUc6xAybq9tP1ahR27 jFIFbvdspW6Y91LhwUHyM1RY9kCga2sTJI+P/zVSjmKP1c/58LI9NUt35zugudrBqY8x JcdmV4iAqnJcUQUgPwR8Pc/rrFvkr2HLKVtMzCgWOssIaFGiOb5LaNXKNMFJ7O7kQDuk G6Dw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubhsgUcLzkYHD2G/S4B//c9k+fDZYNBkgQBaqvjqTVpg+5kKZyI Q6RIMxjrepR8J0Iq5FznMSivEA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Iam2fuQMMTX1TDCHmsgklwpp4sDzgQX168nA3kMY5g1d8Cz5U3GBKneLF9WIJG3Vg/LqE2K+w==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2734:: with SMTP id g49mr29835875qtg.115.1550718542346; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 20sm12564505qts.82.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:09:01 -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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 22:09:00 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Russ Housley <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-18
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 03:09:07 -0000

I generated PR for these:

> On Feb 9, 2019, at 13:50, Russ Housley <> 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
> <>.
> 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.


> Minor Concerns:
> Section 3.1 uses as an example.  However, this is
> a registered domain.  It would be better to follow the IESG statement on
> examples:

I was really hoping a Dr. Evil included their info the DNS.  It wasn’t there.
I changed to

> Section 6.2 uses  as an example.  Of course,
> is a registered domain. It would be better to follow the IESG
> statement on examples (the URL is above).

Changed it to

> 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/


> 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/


> 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/


> Section 6.5: the phrase "Implementations MUST implement" seems awkward.
> Perhaps "Implementations MUST support".  This appears several places.


> 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.