Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-westerlund-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-11

"Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net> Mon, 07 December 2015 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 E36281B2BCD for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:51:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 I-KfKKRkxWJv for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp01.mail2web.com (xsmtp01.mail2web.com [168.144.250.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 921E71B2B40 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.2.35] (helo=xmail10.myhosting.com) by xsmtp01.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1a5ltc-0005ym-Nc for secdir@ietf.org; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 21:51:25 -0500
Received: (qmail 16810 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2015 02:51:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO huitema1) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[24.16.156.113]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail10.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <draft-westerlund-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session.all@tools.ietf.org>; 7 Dec 2015 02:51:23 -0000
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net>
To: <iesg@ietf.org>, <draft-westerlund-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session.all@tools.ietf.org>
References: <061101d1308a$9e1dd3b0$da597b10$@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <061101d1308a$9e1dd3b0$da597b10$@huitema.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:52:07 -0800
Message-ID: <062b01d1309a$446c4c60$cd44e520$@huitema.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJdr4MJKyUZEGlCvNT9ohKtul2jyJ2l1Q4g
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/a9pirKfF0Xa-Wywfihdcj6BqP5I>
Cc: 'secdir' <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-westerlund-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-11
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: <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: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 02:51:28 -0000

-- Resending with proper alias for draft authors

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 authors, document editors, and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments.

Version reviewed: draft-westerlund-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-11

Summary: Ready

The draft proposes to allow RTP streams to carry multiple media streams, 
relaxing the opposite requirement expressed in RFC 3550 and RFC 3551. 
The draft is well written and easy to understand, from the motivation of 
easier session establishment to the various details of RTP that have 
to be taken care of.

The security session addresses the main security implication of carrying
multiple media in a single stream. Whereas previous each media could be
secured independently, all media multiplexed on a single stream will share 
the same security protections. This can be positive if the security of all
meets the most stringent requirement, or negative if the implementers
picked a lowest common denominator. I don't believe that there is much 
of a practical concern there.

-- Christian Huitema