[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-11

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Thu, 28 June 2012 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D2C11E817C; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 gkDWVxZzv+bP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (mail2.ihtfp.org [IPv6:2001:4830:143:1::3a11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C924711E8171; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B742E2602B7; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:21:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08938-04; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:21:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocana.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::224:d7ff:fee7:8924]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cliodev.ihtfp.com", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (not verified)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85CCF260224; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:21:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by mocana.ihtfp.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q5S2LXba019270; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:21:33 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:21:33 -0400
Message-ID: <sjmfw9gnple.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Cc: mohsen.soroush@sylantro.com, alan.b.johnston@gmail.com, vvenkatar@gmail.com, bliss-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-11
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:21:41 -0000

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

   This document describes the requirements and implementation of a
   group telephony feature commonly known as Bridged Line Appearance
   (BLA) or Multiple Line Appearance (MLA), or Shared Call/Line
   Appearance (SCA).  When implemented using the Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP), it is referred to as shared appearances of an Address
   of Record (AOR) since SIP does not have the concept of lines.  This
   feature is commonly offered in IP Centrex services and IP-PBX
   offerings and is likely to be implemented on SIP IP telephones and
   SIP feature servers used in a business environment.  This feature
   allows several user agents (UAs) to share a common AOR, learn about
   calls placed and received by other UAs in the group, and pick up or
   join calls within the group.  This document discusses use cases,
   lists requirements and defines extensions to implement this feature.

The first sentence of the first paragraph of the Security Considerations
section is missing a reference.  It says:

   ...
   semantics provided by [RFC3261], Event Package for Dialog State as
   define in , and Event Notification [I-D.ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis],
   [RFC3903], ...

The "define in" should be "defined in", and needs a place where it is
defined.

The second paragraph says that dialog state information and dialog
identifiers MAY be encrypted, but doesn't talk about why one would
choose not to encrypt it.

Similarly, the last paragraph provides guidance on waiting for
confirmed seizures, but does not explain the details about why one must
do so.

Both of these might be obvious to writers, but to someone reading the
document they are not clear.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant