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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 0DBC51AC3E7; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 NDacAyLBjUgx; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 158B61AC3E3; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t31LBCgI054427 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:11:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:11:11 -0500
Message-ID: <916F29B3-E392-481B-A269-FBA58DFEF14D@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <sjmk2zdzv6g.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
References: <sjmoaosz53h.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <54E3A32F.2010008@jmvalin.ca> <760B7D45D1EFF74988DBF5C2122830C24D064CDE@szxpml507-mbx.exmail.huawei.com> <sjmk2zdzv6g.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5083)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/B8jPhetz0TZp8aFzgeHueFvsBH4>
Cc: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.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: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:11:35 -0000

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