IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DE81ACCDE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:34 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 3KHPEfzQNTvj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960201ADF59 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z12so7011180wgg.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9jHqGKsuxZxnz86SMeu6CM34ytRJncYycUAqk8w/PbA=; b=Xp468x3Zs7KrYGxTvzNsJBtZdeaqnNrdufab9wr7CrEne7CV7N9Byfa0hLa8vI/sUO 5FudHoUFWInWyclFVTVpuvngCGGU7OZ083Jmt+FWoRB3CKzxS6z3HYxuTD/xc1t4IQqg 473oIDU20FZsYWSlX9LmBLorWUJb4S8Ct61BUww/N0c4kqcA/FmPiFnboil1pyAS5STl OjTdgxM9aeTV6DveQ/ZRZSnnaOqo9MRi0bD9niITyCxc8hyPUhV4iy4e4Yijx/1+LRQg zLymGTC2pVKPbMC8o2uz/YHAoAe0CvEDbLrGues0MjCXj6OMWC2LpRaFDAzSItWINRz5 PO/Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.143.4 with SMTP id sa4mr19223035wjb.4.1385574921464; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.134.195 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2243649D5@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <CEAB0083.6FBE3%rmohanr@cisco.com> <5285E318.3090006@ericsson.com> <BLU169-W10885AF717BCBB60830502093E60@phx.gbl> <CABkgnnVpikDFwzfc=6CnHDOb6rmoe5-54AdYPyrbRvU34Epfig@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W11416B2C0D42888C078A7F493E60@phx.gbl> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2426E369@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CABkgnnU5RqbF-PPtihGU+rtuqemN9f7N7nXLB05_OpF7EmhxjQ@mail.gmail.com> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE224363368@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <CABkgnnV6Ta+Hukps6HRQsvaHVis+aZ0NdT7wvL3VZ2NVRpRoZw@mail.gmail.com> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE2243649D5@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVsQmjdJcrnpUJK6ct9fD8ktBKWM+AyJaAr8RYnpf_9cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:55:34 -0000

On 27 November 2013 09:38, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
<mperumal@cisco.com> wrote:
> From a security perspective, I don't see a real advantage of one over the other.

That's right, they are equivalent.  Unless you consider the risk of a
preimage attack on SHA-1 within the confines of the STUN message size
limit to be a realistic.  (I don't.)

Equivalence on security is only the first order bit upon which we decide.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email