Re: [Sipbrandy] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-03

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 11 January 2018 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3E7126B6E for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:07:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 99YN0v6Qf-eM for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0F1612D87C for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A7A3009FC for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:07:28 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id AOGVE3OYwuxP for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:07:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FD5530056B; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:07:27 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <D67CD676.1F5199%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:07:26 -0500
Cc: "sipbrandy@ietf.org" <sipbrandy@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F69AB67B-A5AF-4B78-A313-AF63A9600053@vigilsec.com>
References: <D67CD676.1F5199%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@team.neustar>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/YVESIqq7e5iuMzMtIN8pnxmoh54>
Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-03
X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list <sipbrandy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipbrandy/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipbrandy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 21:07:31 -0000

> On Jan 11, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Peterson, Jon <jon.peterson@team.neustar> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks for these notes Russ:
> 
>> Major:
>> 
>> In Section 4.3, I do not know what is meant by "STIR Profile for media
>> confidentiality".
> 
> I think we've been using that language as the name for this entire effort:
> as a way to leverage STIR through a particular extension with its
> incumbent behavior to get media confidentiality. Since media
> confidentiality was definitely not a requirement of STIR initially, this
> is effectively a profile, a narrow use case applying STIR to something
> slightly different. I think SHAKEN set the precedent for profiling STIR
> through an extension, and we are just following that. I'm not sure how to
> make that more clear, though.

I think we need to separate the authentication provided the signature in STIR and the ability for some other mechanism to leverage that signature to provide confidentiality.

> 
>> 
>> Minor:
>> 
>> I think the discussion in the first paragraph of Section 3.1 should be
>> slightly expanded to be clear that we are not talking about integrity
>> protection of SDP k= records.  I'd prefer a MUST NOT statement.
> 
> Fine by me. 
> 
>> 
>> In Section 4.1: s/SIP endpoints must acquire/SIP endpoints MUST acquire/
> 
> So... I don't think this language is stipulating implementation behavior
> as such - it is expressing a practical necessity rather than something we
> would test conformance with, I think? The spec then goes on to discuss the
> actual protocol mechanisms you might use to actually acquire credentials.
> If the "must" is annoying I can paraphrase to "as a matter of practical
> necessity need to". Or maybe I need more RFC8174 sensitivity training.

That change would help me.

> 
>> 
>> In Section 4.2: 
>>  s/should be discarded/SHOULD be discarded/
>>  s/should be generated/SHOULD be generated/
> 
> These ones however I think you're right, we are talking about
> implementation behavior.

Thanks.

Russ