Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <> Thu, 31 December 2009 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204FA3A6829; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:50:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.307
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1KeAYbeGRcvW; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579573A67B6; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEABqrPEurRN+J/2dsb2JhbACDaJY1pXqHAI0tgS2CLlYE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,483,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="126922771"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 31 Dec 2009 21:50:31 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBVLoVd4022320; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:50:31 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:50:31 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:50:33 -0800
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <1262286190.65839253@>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec
Thread-Index: AcqKS+ZAvjIymBIfTya5iawFIl1ZHgAFtwgA
References: <1262286190.65839253@>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <>
To: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2009 21:50:31.0886 (UTC) FILETIME=[4645DEE0:01CA8A63]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:21:49 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:50:53 -0000

Hi Scott,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:03 PM
> To:;; Ali C. Begen (abegen);; fecframe-
> Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec
> 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.

Thanks for the review.
> This document describes implementation of a forward error correction protocol over RTP
> using already-defined protocol elements. The protocol was originally defined by an ETSI
> group.
> The security considerations section says, "This specification adds no new security
> considerations to the DVB-IPTV AL-FEC protocol", which I take to mean that the authors see
> no way in which the proposed approach changes the security properties of the original ETSI
> specification. Since the protocol doesn't seem to implement any security features, I guess
> this is probably correct. Still, it might be better to add some additional commentary such
> as what is found in the security considerations section of draft-ietf-fecframe-
> interleaved-fec-scheme-07.txt (or, perhaps point to that and the framework doc).

We can do this. I'd probably prefer to do this minor addition after all IESG comments are received.
> Lacking much necessary background in this area, I don't feel qualified to fully evaluate
> this document. With that deficiency noted, the only possible red flag I saw is that the
> FEC protocol requires that the SSRC fields of the FEC frames be set to 0, while SRTP
> requires unique SSRC values for security reasons. With my very limited background, I can't
> be sure if there is an important security interaction here or not, but it seems worth
> asking about.

Agree, however, that is one of the issues ETSI/DVB was not able to change due to existing implementations in the field. draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme does not have this bug, but the al-fec draft needs to say what the ETSI spec currently requires.

Cheers and happy new year.

> --Scott