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

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