Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05

"Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com> Mon, 03 January 2011 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <julienl@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1633A6ADA; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:03:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.198, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lSSeVkvHXJOG; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A823A6ADE; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:03:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=julienl@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1294081543; x=1325617543; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Laganier,=20Julien"=20<julienl@qualcomm.com> |To:=20Peter=20Saint-Andre=20<stpeter@stpeter.im>|CC:=20" secdir@ietf.org"=20<secdir@ietf.org>,=20"iesg@ietf.org" =20<iesg@ietf.org>,=0D=0A=09"draft-loreto-http-bidirectio nal.all@tools.ietf.org"=0D=0A=09<draft-loreto-http-bidire ctional.all@tools.ietf.org>|Date:=20Mon,=203=20Jan=202011 =2011:05:38=20-0800|Subject:=20RE:=20SecDir=20review=20of =20draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05|Thread-Topic:=20Sec Dir=20review=20of=20draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05 |Thread-Index:=20AcureMj+40ab8lvDQEyyVHCDDKK0IwAACR0g |Message-ID:=20<BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F7E273BBF4 A@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>|References:=20<BF345F63074 F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6FBFE5D@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.c om>=0D=0A=20<4D221D21.40107@stpeter.im>|In-Reply-To:=20<4 D221D21.40107@stpeter.im>|Accept-Language:=20en-US |Content-Language:=20en-US|X-MS-Has-Attach: |X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage:=20en-US |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"utf-8" |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20base64|MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=wn7NwDXyjsdyAgqATvEFDlGta9m0yw5AX2U3PUFpnQ4=; b=jXEBY4uYTQ0m0sfzDs9inFSE4zQIkvtwcJBv4dydrvRcrt+e7QWfrhz3 xDzPs22YuWVyJ4mzNza9u0qVKLDRivM27/uM0VuLQjIU8ECbMVQ6T4md3 Zh2KE5tWIbNojYMDA9iamJYNUuiP8Kd/yczRjyDzcl1gx20e4PQ3VdjXN w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6215"; a="69080052"
Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2011 11:05:40 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,266,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="104748375"
Received: from nasanexhub02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.46.143.120]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 03 Jan 2011 11:05:40 -0800
Received: from nalasexhub02.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.130.89) by nasanexhub02.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.143.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.83.0; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:05:40 -0800
Received: from NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.7.118]) by nalasexhub02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.130.89]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:05:40 -0800
From: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:05:38 -0800
Thread-Topic: SecDir review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05
Thread-Index: AcureMj+40ab8lvDQEyyVHCDDKK0IwAACR0g
Message-ID: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F7E273BBF4A@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6FBFE5D@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <4D221D21.40107@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4D221D21.40107@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-loreto-http-bidirectional.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-loreto-http-bidirectional.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:03:44 -0000

Thanks Pete, what you propose below seems appropriate.

--julien

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your review, and our apologies for the delayed reply.
> 
> On 12/16/10 9:38 AM, Laganier, Julien 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.
> >
> > The document describes "Known issues and best practices for the Use
> > of Long Polling and                    Streaming in Bidirectional
> > HTTP", and it has the following abstract:
> >
> > There is widespread interest in using the Hypertext Transfer
> > Protocol (HTTP) to enable asynchronous or server-initiated
> > communication from a server to a client as well as from a client to a
> > server.  This document describes the known issues and the best
> > practices related to the use of HTTP, as it exists today, to enable
> > such "bidirectional HTTP".  The two existing mechanisms, called "HTTP
> > long polling" and "HTTP streaming" are described.
> >
> > The document is very clear and articulate and I have not found any
> > security issues that were not covered appropriately in the Security
> > Considerations sections.
> >
> > I have two concerns regarding the use of "should", "must" etc.:
> >
> > 1. I have found at least one occurrence where a recommendation is
> > made using lower cases "recommended" and "should". Should upper cases
> > be used instead?
> 
> Currently this document does not reference RFC 2119 or use capitalized
> keywords. Instead of adding such a reference, I suggest changing that
> text to:
> 
>    Several experiments have shown success with timeouts as high as 120
>    seconds, but generally 30 seconds is a safer value.  Therefore
>    vendors of network equipment wishing to be compatible with the HTTP
>    long polling mechanism are advised to implement a timeout
>    substantially greater than 30 seconds (where "substantially" means
>    several times more than the medium network transit time).
> 
> > 2. Similarly, parts of the text describes node behavior using lower
> > cases "should" and "must". This makes it hard for the reader to
> > differentiate between behavior specified in another standard document
> > from behavior that can be reasonably expected from a deployed
> > implementation. I would suggest that upper case requirements key
> > words ("SHOULD", "MUST") be used if the behavior thereby enounced is
> > specified within another RFC documents, and that document be cited
> > next to the statement.
> 
> The sentences you mention indeed simply cite other RFCs. Because the
> actual normative text is contained in the referenced RFCs, I suggest
> that we remove the lowercase "should" and "must" words from this I-D.
> 
> > Nits:
> >
> > s/DOS attacks\.[RFC4732]/Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks [RFC4732]/
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Peter
> 
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/