[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-worley-service-example-13
Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 15:51 UTC
Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D2011E8211 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28iDI69PJpXn for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A463121F99F4 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:53446) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1VCXAW-000DTr-Up; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:51:29 -0400
Message-ID: <52163380.5070005@bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:51:28 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, worley@ariadne.com, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, fluffy@iii.ca, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000107060007080509050304"
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-worley-service-example-13
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:51:50 -0000
SECDIR review of draft-worley-service-example-13 I 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 document describes how to provide music on old (MOH) in a VoIp environment, an obviously critical capability needed to preserve feature compatibility with the PSTN. Callers who are not subjected to MOH might otherwise not be exposed to classical music, in many contexts, a tragic outcome. This document is intended to be Informational. The author notes that this status is appropriate because there are other methods for providing MOH, and they interoperate. He believes that the proposed method is superior, but not so much as to warrant BCP status. The document seems to be well-written, clear, and it contains numerous examples (and diagrams) to help illustrate the mechanism details. I was surprised to see that all the references to RFCs (normative and informative) use labels other than RFC numbers. This an unusual convention that I hope the RFC editor will fix. It is hard to overstate the importance of appropriate security mechanisms for this critical aspect of VoIP. Consistent with this observation, the Security Considerations section of this document consists of just one paragraph. The paragraph addresses one security concern, i.e., the ability of the UA of a caller to filter incoming media based on the address of the source of the media. The design in this document provides the source address of the MOH server, via SDP (in a re-INVITE), to the caller who is on hold, and thus satisfies this concern. In a more serious vein, I'd like to see the Security Considerations section mention whether UAs are expected to use SDP and SIP security mechanisms for MOH, IF these mechanisms were employed for the original call. Another paragraph could be added to discuss the desirability of maintaining an equivalent level of security when a caller is switched over to MOH, and to cite the relevant RFCs, or to explain why this is not appropriate.
- [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-worley-service-ex… Stephen Kent
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-worley-servic… Dale R. Worley