[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07

Scott Kelly <scott@hyperthought.com> Mon, 22 December 2014 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@hyperthought.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 33F661A8F41 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 05:53:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 r3gvVhZgo5Ao for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 05:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp66.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp66.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C211A8F3A for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 05:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp17.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C0B3A1803FB; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:53:11 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp17.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: scott-AT-hyperthought.com) with ESMTPSA id 20FC21804B3; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:53:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: scott@hyperthought.com
Received: from [192.168.128.24] (c-76-21-94-29.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.21.94.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.4.2); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:53:11 GMT
From: Scott Kelly <scott@hyperthought.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EEB37667-C060-4610-A9DF-83192FA17E18@hyperthought.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 05:53:09 -0800
To: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count.all@tools.ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/uZ3jjkZZOfEmLETfRiKs3h3hIxs
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-post-repair-loss-count-07
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: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:53:14 -0000

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.

Here’s the abstract:

   This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
   (XR) Block that allows reporting of post-repair loss count metrics
   for a range of RTP applications.

Prior to this mechanism, RTCP Sender Reports (SR)/Receiver Reports (RR) contain, among other things, the cumulative number of packets lost. That number doesn’t indicate the data successfully received, because the receiver can apply repair mechanisms to recover data. This document adds reporting for post-repair metrics.

The security considerations seem complete, but I have one nit. Here’s the first sentence:

   It is believed that this RTCP XR block introduces no new security
   considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611]. 

Who believes this? I would simply assert this (remove “It is believed that”), and if I wasn’t comfortable with that, I’d take that as an indication that more analysis is required.

—Scott