Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-13

Chris Lonvick <> Sun, 24 July 2016 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F40412D862; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ueU0mc2lNNUX; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13E112D864; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u134so140674415ywg.3; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=/u4QEQRZkyiBD4IraIKIwxe11Y60PJBa7KAq33UjP+A=; b=fua2t2Y/U3MZMAGd182V8bM20fjnc+4g/vy/5flOXogj87pGHxPaEqpoKNcPFH5SVx PMFiUhgIurZbYScbWOIN2523BuxUUscWaxUqP/tJDvgjDjQ+j+aqycVUerhKzdabn1fC iUjoLdYxRyeab2WGJRMEo1hi3SMrT27ERHgo5AGOACFGcjYFq9g+gq2n1I4sPK+/JFaw AYuftFcipKxGtPASg3iOhKHYs01lJ8HTxG/4SXyrS3ERXgucaxRr549Mvy+pSoiNITUz vPZbJ023XsuOFAbELVLM4FGokxOmD/MbI1Q1Ci37CDB6ze0ApltG0DFHy+cJBVwh9idQ ETIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/u4QEQRZkyiBD4IraIKIwxe11Y60PJBa7KAq33UjP+A=; b=YSyqtIV/CxiOQ1n1SCAfUGUU839mTrbQ6CQCG0MxHDJEcu0Rmc86oiOPWYAzTm8f1W dEE9msdZfWLahgbszkrawJaMWfJIQX9TLALqC1t3QjUpfhVgMX7goXRKT0kELT1ff37s 8URrBlrR1C6r0CJyjS342zozSoEmw2yzylCH8MyOqbipJUeY3qhH4APG8tPBjRsbJoPw xkq1b6MGbTpHUZ9nx3pW5tIXfrouEBPmciHhgTNazds1VYSKNVJwD6UcfUGyTNOspXyo dJ6qnC/rFu22Ofjwo/vPjsHsGbxiCO2bGeCYxSv1o8yFbcO+7I4/m9fkweYutpCz7jMk pNbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvDZF67m4dPkK2FbcoqH+mc6XTaXE1qMAsx0KvrdUSlaSJAjjV3Z8QPy8e/YQHhVg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v144mr12159652ywe.9.1469371262942; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2602:306:838b:1c40:3c32:47ac:f71f:323f]) by with ESMTPSA id j124sm9456712ywg.49.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: "" <>, "" <>,
References: <>
From: Chris Lonvick <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 09:41:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010701030503080206000702"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 14:41:08 -0000

Apologies for the duplication - resending to the right alias.

On 7/24/16 9:39 AM, Chris Lonvick 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 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.
> I've been rather busy and haven't had time to thoroughly review this 
> document. But I did look at the Security Considerations section and 
> will recommend that some additions be made. The Security 
> Considerations section says, "This document does not add any new 
> security considerations beyond the existing considerations in the RFCs 
> for protocols that are being multiplexed together. " (First 
> paragraph.) I believe that it would be helpful to readers and 
> implementers if the specification were to give pointers to RFCs for 
> protocols that are being multiplexed together, and their security 
> considerations.
> The section continues by saying, "The ways that SRTP streams are keyed 
> is not believed to create any two-time pad vulnerability for the 
> currently defined SRTP keying mechanism." (Second paragraph.) I may 
> not have seen it but I don't believe that this document specifies 
> keying for SRTP streams, but only references RFC4567 (Section 5.35) 
> and RFC4572 (Section 5.36). If that's the case, then this document 
> doesn't need to opine about possible vulnerabilities in that area; 
> leave it to those or subsequent documents to make that analysis.
> It would be appropriate to reiterate that the CAUTION category may 
> produce some problems.
> For completeness, it may be good to include pointers to other mmusic 
> and SDP documents that have addressed security aspects. A statement of 
> how that may apply to this specification would be appropriate. I don't 
> think this would need to be detailed.
> Best regards,
> Chris