[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-04

Leif Johansson via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 09 January 2020 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586E11200C1; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 05:06:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Leif Johansson via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-jmap-websocket.all@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.115.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se>
Message-ID: <157857518227.11730.7008293637130176864@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 05:06:22 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/SssjZ-LPlvpPN4vB7vI8juxhdB8>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 09 Jan 2020 13:06:22 -0000

Reviewer: Leif Johansson
Review result: Has Issues

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.

I apologize for being very late with this review and since this is already
in the IESG process it is clearly ok to completely ignore this review!

In summary I think the security considerations sections have a few
issues. In particular several of the identified security issues in section
10 of RFC 6455 place requirements on implementations and profiles
but JMAP websocket makes no effort to expand on those requirements.

For instance is the intention of jmap websocket to be built into non-
browser clients so section 10.1 applies (or not)? What are the authentication
requirements of jmap websocket (section 10.5) etc.

I think the security considerations should make an attempt to cover this
if at all possible.