Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
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 37EC91A6F27; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 iTGLlg7l3ISl; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A97511A6F1E; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by labbd9 with SMTP id bd9so79374648lab.2; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=sePa/wHDFIqpRK17xjkk6smoE4LEpfe7lvwy9zaNf1w=; b=HXRHMTIKUQGT5E4Pn5FLuN+iHhhfr6n/b9f/vdjfZjn76UByb3a5aKi/krF6wAIKu/ mfgEnYfJrH5O0VAqEhWEm7SOzyKSUal928Rx4wTXACdKazo9bASfaWqL5HxzHDF8gbH1 +LnguvIXg4WxxK9dd0G/JhFOgMI7kihH2EEqmHwzuUPLQ+8wY+TAX5+rJDL2yG2+nkvT aPRpiiFyAp+LYPAI+vHy/2Xd8IlmFAt0FffznKXrn3cu3mD/6NjMtp5j2NfJqbp8iM34 ZCXyxYi1TuvXhZgC8a5aQGBdIXEd2aq/kegVvRc4dN9wY96GECAVo/bWe1eXHYritT4e ejiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.120.70 with SMTP id la6mr4945472lab.65.1428589473168; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.167.101 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6666FE0B-39E1-4FA5-94C4-72AAEF5CB7C2@nostrum.com>
References: <sjmoaosz53h.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <551EFB9C.4040504@xiph.org> <sjmy4m5grwp.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <269A06E2-6704-4E5E-BBFD-92F157639261@nostrum.com> <5522D40E.8040402@nostrum.com> <73626E80-1EBA-4A85-83DD-32423649DBD1@csperkins.org> <035501d0711a$7856b0a0$690411e0$@gmail.com> <5523C5AE.7040108@mozilla.com> <sjmpp7ggft8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <CAHbuEH63BtaENfm6-_itp1eLtSCyC8LRvGbGPbKVAR-k6GQdZA@mail.gmail.com> <927CC992-13D7-41B9-A9AF-7F4E31905DF2@csperkins.org> <sjmd23ehf4o.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <402C1C17-65A1-4461-9CA8-D7035022DEFE@csperkins.org> <759691e866a2fc8c41aa43acc18cbd19.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <B9A87595-5AAF-47CA-B898-8C8601D3B8C1@nostrum.com> <8D455380-E490-4026-8485-4CE05F345E7F@nostrum.com> <82197574-D574-45C1-BFCF-0826E0037ED3@csperkins.org> <sjm8ue1h1hc.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <D8C8B618-E131-4F64-BFAC-CA62F7A354B8@nostrum.com> <92033c98980490d44f219907a64e6434.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <E4980EE8-5CBE-46D1-9B39-BE97B041B148@nostrum.com> <f609a3a3528c26aa832927bfeb78e978.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <6666FE0B-39E1-4FA5-94C4-72AAEF5CB7C2@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:24:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH6SoONm6pPwbf3HYhSj8DWX_cTPqPKtu-3BDrHtc=Vi+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012299d414006d05134b6893
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/iI0x3tQ9gt5WFGi7Rxe8za2lC10>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, payload@ietf.org, jspittka@gmail.com, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org, koenvos74@gmail.com, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
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: <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, 09 Apr 2015 14:24:37 -0000

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 9 Apr 2015, at 9:19, Derek Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Thu, April 9, 2015 10:07 am, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >> On 9 Apr 2015, at 9:00, Derek Atkins wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ben,
> >>>
> > [snip]
> >>> So you're suggesting (and would be okay with) this text:
> >>>
> >>> RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification
> >>> are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP
> >>> specification RFC3550, and in any applicable RTP profile such as
> >>> RTP/AVP [RFC3551], RTP/AVPF [RFC4585], RTP/SAVP [RFC3711] or RTP/
> >>> SAVPF [RFC5124].  However, as "Securing the RTP Protocol Framework:
> >>> Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution"
> >>> [I-D.ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory] discusses it is not an RTP payload
> >>> formats responsibility to discuss or mandate what solutions are used
> >>> to meet the basic security goals like confidentiality, integrity and
> >>> source authenticity for RTP in general.  This responsibility lays on
> >>> anyone using RTP in an application.  They can find guidance on
> >>> available security mechanisms and important considerations in Options
> >>> for Securing RTP Sessions [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options].
> >>> Applications SHOULD use an appropriate strong security mechanism.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am okay with that text.
> >>
> >>> I think I'm okay with this.  (I kind of prefer my previous wording,
> >>> "Applications SHOULD implement at least one of the strong security
> >>> measures suggested by those references" only because it suggests that
> >>> multiple mechanisms are okay, whereas this new wording seems to imply
> >>> choosing only one).
> >>
> >> How about "Applications SHOULD use one or more strong security
> >> mechanisms, as appropriate"?
> >
> > Clearly now we're just getting down to wordsmithing..  :)
>
> Yeah, we should probably let the authors wordsmith their own draft :-)
>
> >
> > How about "Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong
> security
> > mechanisms"?  (The subclause "as apporpriate" feels to me like it could
> be
> > ignored, as in "well, using a strong security mechanism isn't
> > appropriate").  I think the goal is to make sure that "appropriate"
> > modifies the "strong security mechanism" and not the "SHOULD use"  ;)
> >
> > What say you?
>
> WFM
>

This text works for me as well.  Please let me know once the draft has been
updated and thanks for the discussion on this point.

Kathleen

>
> >
> > -derek
> >
> > --
> >      Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
> >      derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
> >      Computer and Internet Security Consultant
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen