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
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Robert Sparks
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Roni Even
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Roni Even
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Roni Even
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Colin Perkins
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ie… Magnus Westerlund
- [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp… Derek Atkins
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload… Roni Even
- Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload… Derek Atkins