Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Thu, 02 April 2015 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44721A8AFB; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611] autolearn=no
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 7THLBZHUDzo4; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 06:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69671A8AD9; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 06:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30ED4E2058; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:40:52 -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 29134-06; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:40:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::ea2a:eaff:fe7d:235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58376E2036; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:40:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id t32DejmM023550; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:40:45 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
References: <sjmoaosz53h.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <54E3A32F.2010008@jmvalin.ca> <760B7D45D1EFF74988DBF5C2122830C24D064CDE@szxpml507-mbx.exmail.huawei.com> <sjmk2zdzv6g.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <916F29B3-E392-481B-A269-FBA58DFEF14D@nostrum.com> <551C612B.4030702@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:40:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <551C612B.4030702@mozilla.com> (Jean-Marc Valin's message of "Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:20:43 -0400")
Message-ID: <sjma8yqk5r7.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/5AouvoZzieFTE3sXEXCb7rLZfVU>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "jspittka@gmail.com" <jspittka@gmail.com>, Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "koenvos74@gmail.com" <koenvos74@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 02 Apr 2015 13:40:56 -0000

Yes, this was the resolution as I recall.

-derek

Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com> writes:

> Based on Derek's latest suggestion, the text would become:
>
> "Since Opus does not provide any confidentiality or integrity
> protection, implementations SHOULD use one of the possible RTP
> Security methods (See RFC7201, RFC7202)."
>
> I think that should resolve the issue that was raised.
>
> 	Jean-Marc
>
> On 01/04/15 05:11 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Hi Roni and Derek,
>> 
>> This thread sort of tailed off in February. Has the discussion been
>> resolved?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Ben.
>> 
>> On 19 Feb 2015, at 11:07, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> 
>>> Roni,
>>> 
>>> I'm not an RTP guy.  To me "SRTP" is a general class of "Secure
>>> RTP" protocols.  So let's work on that as my starting point:
>>> implementations SHOULD protect their RTP stream.
>>> 
>>> Based on that, how about a re-wording here?  Instead of just
>>> saying "MAY use SRTP", how about something like "SHOULD use one
>>> of the possible RTP Security methods (See RFC7201, RFC7202)"?
>>> (Obviously this can be worded better).
>>> 
>>> -derek
>>> 
>>> Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Hi, The reason for the may is discussed in RFC7201 and RFC
>>>> 7202, it can be a SHOULD and these RFCs exaplain when it is not
>>>> required to use SRTP. Maybe add a reference to these RFCs in
>>>> the security section when saying talking about good reasons for
>>>> not using SRTP
>>>> 
>>>> Roni Even
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Valin
>>>> [jvalin@mozilla.com] on behalf of Jean-Marc Valin
>>>> [jmvalin@mozilla.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:23
>>>> PM To: Derek Atkins; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org Cc:
>>>> payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org; koenvos74@gmail.com;
>>>> jspittka@gmail.com Subject: Re: sec-dir review of
>>>> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Derek,
>>>> 
>>>> There was no particular reason for the MAY, the text was merely
>>>> copied from other RTP payload RFC. I totally agree with making
>>>> it a SHOULD.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Jean-Marc
>>>> 
>>>> On 17/02/15 02:54 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>> with the intent of improving security requirements and
>>>>> considerations in IETF drafts.  Comments not addressed in
>>>>> last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
>>>>> review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these 
>>>>> comments just like any other last call comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ready to publish with a question: I question why the use of
>>>>> SRTP is a MAY and not a SHOULD (as detailed in the Security
>>>>> Considerations section).  Considering PERPASS I believe this
>>>>> should be a SHOULD; someone should have a very good reason
>>>>> why they are NOT using SRTP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Details:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This document defines the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
>>>>> payload format for packetization of Opus encoded speech and
>>>>> audio data necessary to integrate the codec in the most
>>>>> compatible way. Further, it describes media type
>>>>> registrations for the RTP payload format.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have no other comments on this document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -derek
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ secdir mailing
>>>> list secdir@ietf.org 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir wiki:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com
>>> www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant

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