Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-camarillo-rai-media-policy-dataset-01

Gonzalo Camarillo <> Thu, 31 May 2012 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD4121F8630; Thu, 31 May 2012 03:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UTRNYj8S8ye6; Thu, 31 May 2012 03:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395F021F860D; Thu, 31 May 2012 03:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7fc66d000006fdc-64-4fc742b36a85
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B9.03.28636.3B247CF4; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:06:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:06:42 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:06:42 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre5mp+P+BtMniFvcfjWLzWLGn4nM Fh8WPmSxWHV/BrsDi8fOWXfZPZYs+cnk8eXyZ7YA5igum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujOY7/1kLDotW 9Cy5wdrAuECwi5GTQ0LAROLogjNMELaYxIV769m6GLk4hAROMUr8W93FApIQEljNKNF8TxnE 5hXQlFg6cy8biM0ioCpxd8dlVhCbTcBCYsut+2D1ogLBEvO6b7JA1AtKnJz5BMjm4BAB6p12 1ApkPjPI/AOHPzOCxIUFPCX6n0ZArNKQ2L9xAjuIzQlU/vLmRzaI2yQlDv67BhZnFjCQOLJo DiuELS/RvHU2M0SvtsTyZy0sExiFZiHZPAtJyywkLQsYmVcxCucmZuaklxvqpRZlJhcX5+fp FaduYgSG98Etv3V3MJ46J3KIUZqDRUmclytpv7+QQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkG xi79JRXhClejXE49z/6oNTN39YQfRZXW9xpPzvbTqRCt5EoVXPL976rvPsfL4h+s+jtn5Rc1 ycgCBWGmwuVsy394mWx/4jo//emJlhum835ot3ZNeGj15vW8xAiBHRqZMmG7r90vcfl1sSVX 75/5BT+BRYFycT+s3swWuqOU5uy49oPP7CI3ASWW4oxEQy3mouJEADywAYk9AgAA
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-camarillo-rai-media-policy-dataset-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:06:46 -0000

Hi Yaron,

thanks for reviewing the document. I will add the two references you
suggest in your last point to the next revision of the draft.

With respect to the remainder of your comments on the event package
document, that draft has already been in the RFC Editor's queue for a
while. So, at this point, we will not change it (although I would be
happy to replace that "should not" with a "SHOULD NOT" in AUTH48). Also,
SIP security is getting deployed on the field slowly as time goes by. It
is true that it is taking a while, but we are getting there.



On 25/05/2012 7:07 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> 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.
> Summary
> Nothing much here - this is not where the security action is. However a 
> companion document may need some deeper security review.
> Details
> This draft defines the contents/format of a media document. The document 
> allows a SIP policy server to dictate the media policy that should be 
> implemented by a UA, in general or on a per-session basis.
> • The draft requires that all documents be well-formed and valid XML, 
> which is good - not only for security.
> • The real security stuff is in draft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-08. I 
> will not review that document here, but I find it puzzling that session 
> (media) information is transmitted/secured along with session encryption 
> keys. Mixing together data of such disparate security sensitivity levels 
> is likely to result in either over-engineering or under-security.
> • Reading further down the said security considerations, this issue is 
> addressed ("the user agent should not insert" etc.), but none of that 
> discussion is normative!
> • Moreover, recent discussion on SAAG 
> ( 
> suggests that some of the security solutions mandated by the Policy 
> Package draft as well as the current draft are, to put it mildly, not 
> widely implemented.
> •  Back to the current document. Re: XML security considerations, please 
> reference the security considerations of RFC 3470, and possibly also: 
> Marsh, J., Orchard, D., and D. Veillard, "XML Inclusions (XInclude) 
> Version 1.0 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation 
> REC-xinclude-20061115, November 2006, 
> <>.
> Thanks,
>      Yaron