[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-06

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.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 0540A1AE004; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:07:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 nJeebK20FQbu; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F471ADFEF; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:07:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1565; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386032862; x=1387242462; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/nEH2JHa+wzVp3ozVbx5lVgJprJEPrHYe56JvhFlqMk=; b=kGM0+1F0wlaI2BBSjTp/kGjpoXT+zfRsM1uyNuChJpiCB/ILPBvYGVGA YmZLlhbYg66UFhTG53w59dFk4rQWgEOowUgxOulUXSb+BpXTSWi3K8nEr fea7D7ZNuoIZTzfJDWHyL73ct4zJbnIExvVDNZZesEXWcZUrS30lm4+TN Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEkunVKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABQCYMHgQu6DRZ0giw6UQE+QicEAYgTwG8Xji2EAoETA5gUkhODKYIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,813,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="3815312"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2013 01:07:41 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB317fHW012286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:07:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.118]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:07:41 -0600
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: "draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org>, "<secdir@ietf.org>" <secdir@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-06
Thread-Index: AQHO78QQ0QnnZ7W5jU6TXQG+ShQBvw==
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 01:07:41 +0000
Message-ID: <FE06B886-EB86-431E-86E3-B6B096265A9B@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.34.94.42]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <A1DCF5104A10D846A21AE1AA277A9F92@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-06
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 01:07:46 -0000

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 draft is ready with some minor issues.  

The draft discusses requirements for multi-stream telepresence.   I don't know much about telepresence, but the draft seems straight forward.  It does include a single requirement about security and it does have a security considerations section.   Although, I might like a bit more description about what "secure exchange" means it think it is probably sufficient.   The type of information that might be useful is what type of attacks or threats is of concern?  For example, does the information need to be secured to disclosure or modification by intermediaries or does have to allow modification by intermediaries. 

The one other question is whether the information about media captures has any privacy considerations.   For example is there geo-location or identity information exchanged?  Are there any long-term identifiers used?  If there is something that we know is going to be exchanged that is sensitive then it would probably be worth including in the requirements. It didn't seem that this type of data was required so this is probably more of a consideration for the protocol spec.  

Cheers,

Joe