Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-stone-mgcp-vbd-07

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Fri, 16 July 2010 10:18 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 5920A3A6850; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.264, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 RahoZU755joZ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1623A69A9; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b91ae000001aef-2c-4c4031dcd2f6
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 1E.16.06895.CD1304C4; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:18:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:18:04 +0200
Received: from [131.160.126.225] ([131.160.126.225]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:18:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4C4031DA.60908@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:18:02 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carl Wallace <CWallace@cygnacom.com>
References: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D4801008455@scygexch1.cygnacom.com> <76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F7CF4A7B323@srvxchg> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48010086A9@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
In-Reply-To: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48010086A9@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2010 10:18:03.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[2CB3F5E0:01CB24D0]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Sumanth Channabasappa <sumanth@CableLabs.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Sandeep Sharma <S.Sharma@CableLabs.com>, "Flemming Andreasen \(fandreas\)" <fandreas@cisco.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "rkumar@cisco.com" <rkumar@cisco.com>, "joestone@cisco.com" <joestone@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-stone-mgcp-vbd-07
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: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:18:10 -0000

Hi Carl,

thanks for your review. The authors will submit a revised I-D addressing
your comments as soon as they are back from vacation.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 28/06/2010 3:34 PM, Carl Wallace wrote:
> Informational track is fine, I was just asking why it was chosen. 
> 
>  
> 
> If you and the ADs are satisfied that the presentation of things like
> the table in 3.1 is sufficiently descriptive that’s fine with me (though
> I’d prefer at least an explicit reference for some of the shorthand). 
> 
>  
> 
> I have no other items to add to security considerations, your proposed
> changes sound good.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Sandeep Sharma [mailto:S.Sharma@CableLabs.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 27, 2010 5:17 PM
> *To:* Carl Wallace; secdir@ietf.org
> *Cc:* iesg@ietf.org; rkumar@cisco.com; joestone@cisco.com; 'Flemming
> Andreasen (fandreas)'; Sumanth Channabasappa
> *Subject:* RE: secdir review of draft-stone-mgcp-vbd-07
> 
>  
> 
> Carl,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for the review comments. I consulted with the co-authors and
> Flemming and our responses are indicated below.
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Wallace [mailto:CWallace@cygnacom.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:03 AM
> To: secdir@ietf.org
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; rkumar@cisco.com; joestone@cisco.com; Sandeep Sharma
> Subject: secdir review of draft-stone-mgcp-vbd-07
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> This document defines new MGCP packages.  This document is pretty far
> 
> outside my sandbox, but I did have a couple of questions and comments.
> 
>  
> 
> - Why is this an Informational document instead of Standards track?  It
> 
> seems to be defining new packages that are not already defined
> 
> elsewhere.
> 
>  
> 
> SJS> MGCP (RFC 3435) and other MGCP packages are Informational RFCs, so
> it seems consistent to have this one being informational as well.
> 
>  
> 
> - I struggled with the presentation a bit and found myself reading
> 
> references to understand some of the shorthand in this document.  For
> 
> example, in section 3.1 the column headers are not described in this
> 
> draft.
> 
>  
> 
> SJS> This is a standard MGCP package format as defined in RFC 3435
> (Section 6, and in this case Section 6.6 in particular)
> 
>  
> 
> - The security considerations section is brief and primarily references
> 
> RFC 3435, which essentially has two security considerations: use IPSec
> 
> and use SDP encryption keys.  The latter is not recommended in the
> 
> current SDP draft.  This section should directly state the security
> 
> considerations it wants to assert. 
> 
>  
> 
> SJS> We agree with your comments about SDP encryption keys (RFC 3435
> Section 5.1). We will call out IPsec specifically and then add a few
> paragraphs about ways to more adequately protect RTP media streams these
> days (SRTP which should probably have at least a "SHOULD" recommendation
> here) as well as some of the specific issues that may arise if an
> attacker is able to modify/inject VBD data in the RTP media stream. We
> would also greatly appreciate if you can provide additional
> guidance/considerations (if any) that you believe should be addressed.
>