RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.txt
"Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 28 March 2007 20:49 UTC
Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWf5A-0008Qq-19; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:49:24 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWf55-0008Pu-KJ for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:49:19 -0400
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([135.245.0.33]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWf53-00069k-U7 for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:49:19 -0400
Received: from ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-1.lucent.com [135.3.39.1]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l2SKnH9s027104 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:49:17 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DEEXP01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.65]) by ilexp01.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:49:17 -0500
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.29]) by DEEXP01.de.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:49:15 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.txt
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:49:14 +0200
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE29180F20492@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1HWe9i-0004Zs-B4@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.txt
Thread-Index: Acdxcpd6dzn9qc9QQEyXCRIMr+ze4QAB3zow
References: <E1HWe9i-0004Zs-B4@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: sip@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2007 20:49:15.0395 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C1C1D30:01C7717A]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f402fbded34a6df606921f56b8bdd8
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
I have just made the publication request on this document. The following is the submitted PROTO writeup. --------------------------------------------------------------------- PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-fork- loop-fix-05.txt: " Addressing an Amplification Vulnerability in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Forking Proxies" (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Keith Drage The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication as a proposed standard. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Document history: * draft-lawrence-maxforward-problems-00 was submitted 16th October 2005 and expired 19th April 2006. * draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-00 was submitted 1st March 2006 and expired on 1st September 2006. * draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-01 was submitted 4th April 2006 and expired on 4th October 2006. * draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-02 was submitted 27th June 2006 and expired on 27th December 2006. * draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-03 was submitted 7th September 2006 and expired on 7th March 2007. * draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-04 was submitted 21st October 2006 and will expire on 24th April 2007. * draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05 was submitted 7th March 2007 and will expire on 8th September 2007. WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-01 on 10th April 2006 with comments requested by 7th May 2006. Review was made and comments were received from: Christer Holmberg, Jonathan Rosenberg, Vijay Gurbani, Cullen Jennings, Jeroen van Bemmel, Ravishankar Shiroor, Dale Worley, Scott Lawrence, Samir Srivastava, Peter Cordell, Thomas Froment, Juha Heinanen, Thomas Leseney, David Benoit, Kasturi Narayanan, Atul Kumar Jha, Theo Zourzouvillys, Paul Kyzivat, Dean Willis, Michael Thomas, Eric Rescorla. Key discussion issues have been: * Selection of a hash algorithm to be used. Section 4.2.3 of the document indicates the results of the discussion in this area. * Identification of a more optimal loop detection algorithm (see draft- campen-sipping-stack-loop-detect-00) which was not proceeded with, as it could not be shown to provide significant improvements for a standards track solution. Some elements of the original proposal were split out in draft-sparks- sipping-max-breadth-00 and draft-campen-sipping-stack-loop-detect-00. There was also further input in draft-srivastava-sipping-loop-avoidance-00. These documents have not been proceeded with. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? The document defines mechanisms that are entirely internal to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). The document shepherd considers that no external review from an external specialist is necessary. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The document provides a correction to the existing SIP protocol defined in RFC 3261. The problem has been identified as part of the SIPit interoperability testing. The document shepherd has no concerns with the document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The proposal has had wide discussion in all aspects in the WG and key be represented as having consensus amongst all key individuals. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) None indicated. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Normally SIP documents should conform to RFC 4485. However as this document identifies a correction to RFC 3261, it does not need to follow those guidelines, but merely has to state the changed to RFC 3261. There are no conformance issues with RFC 3427. For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.03.16 report no NITS found. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has appropriately split its references into normative and informative references. All the normative references are now published standards track RFCs. There is one informative reference (draft-ietf-sip-outbound) that is not yet published. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? There are no IANA considerations for this document, and none are needed. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The document contains no entries written in formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document normatively updates RFC 3261, the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), to address a security vulnerability identified in SIP proxy behavior. This vulnerability enables an attack against SIP networks where a small number of legitimate, even authorized, SIP requests can stimulate massive amounts of proxy-to-proxy traffic. This document strengthens loop-detection requirements on SIP proxies when they fork requests (that is, forward a request to more than one destination). It also corrects and clarifies the description of the loop-detection algorithm such proxies are required to implement. Working Group Summary The document was produced by the SIP working group. There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. Document Quality The document has been produced as a result of an issue identified during SIPit interoperability testing. Personnel Keith Drage is the document shepherd for this document. Cullen Jennings is the responsible Area Director. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:50 PM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: sip@ietf.org > Subject: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Addressing an Amplification Vulnerability in > Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Forking > Proxies > Author(s) : R. Sparks, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2007-3-28 > > This document normatively updates RFC 3261, the Session Initiation > Protocol (SIP), to address a security vulnerability > identified in SIP > proxy behavior. This vulnerability enables an attack against SIP > networks where a small number of legitimate, even authorized, SIP > requests can stimulate massive amounts of proxy-to-proxy traffic. > > This document strengthens loop-detection requirements on > SIP proxies > when they fork requests (that is, forward a request to > more than one > destination). It also corrects and clarifies the > description of the > loop-detection algorithm such proxies are required to implement. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-f > ix-05.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a > message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word > unsubscribe in the body of the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login > with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail > address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant > mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail > reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII > version of the Internet-Draft. > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
- [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-05.… Internet-Drafts
- RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix… Drage, Keith (Keith)