Re: [sipcore] AD Review: draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 17 September 2019 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC6C120104; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JkSoZJAQXsj4; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (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 CF85D1200EF; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id f12so5599507iog.12; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=C3FtN4k34HwfgEAP1elEHWBV0O4A+cWhP+XLU4XO5jw=; b=Nxmef8cgXDHKy6N+5GlM6DyU97ffoDSfr0d0pSUo/++87LpHNEKTul8/pYj4cTLfNc N5IR/IRty1txf+xX4ZFg7j1m5IK+qgVhGqL5S3+/JNgk9+rn7ty3B4kbysyBpDZpadfA x44/0rm1kjxEUCdegnIo5sAGUWiz67gr2tKwn/ZWxz0YioBO3LHBEZUzF3gDWu12igZ/ l1HIj9uAyy3hNABHxt9q5kbF6ug0RJekpMOhdi8HrrsV5detgmyTFDgZ+9zRJFnPuCbb IfhsC9i5vNXyayLWHh0LV+hWjRtnG5+gFW4PgKByPenl4vwT5TpRnnq90iWg9XmM1Gei w0Yw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C3FtN4k34HwfgEAP1elEHWBV0O4A+cWhP+XLU4XO5jw=; b=aXZwY/AlRQ4aqrvQ5la5eioXFAx7ttfTzsYoSNJW6FgJRGExdBMZGZFdHFX4sgRajF 0sWVqv8EJIQ/3BS5KQKgLe32JaGtHUxWJEFD6SzZEaDaqpSNSQom8hIu30K1ziKQgyFK KlsPHUQDLQcWDIPQ0KHJxDqsiMWhCFi62ok4Aa5GANJ9Ktmv6fqOwtonH3h9SJJq9xBK TEzQMR0fnsZMjcjS9UJlQyAZHikoYLC0BApFFuqPaIVCqGgEQCkxVK6Xos0rbHJxBhML jok/RzWn/sWJ7/PFCU4ZMl8l1pMBQBCZhlGV928N+xjezy+q5Gx20DYkHt3trm2p12jv C//g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVGedgOXlQMvbH90WfIjUyckRf/AICnMKG31OlbcdA5GOtaRckS wqj4jhXJJrrK/WkqZf6UO5BSbmRcj06yRv9uyBeKEoN8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwu2J8eqEbMHUzvp5SjkLtCzd40EavyUwC+9rB9v5BABXuLq5uGSWeMcdXH/q+q7DBWyX8hhjZsrfHfr/dSKGU=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:2302:: with SMTP id u2mr2001706jau.70.1568710213031; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6c0d98f4-3334-b223-edb9-7fc5970ab028@nostrum.com> <CAGL6epLLHb0baJoKO8sgE5j9Y-g+RAQCkYGRJbV+yGL=59t8jA@mail.gmail.com> <38f283af-3d14-df41-40cf-3281c98bc8b4@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <38f283af-3d14-df41-40cf-3281c98bc8b4@nostrum.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 04:50:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGL6epKHWQxyv8-jkq_vuo-aTiH+WYWzNMegJts=jChesLGLaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000db7e0592bbcff9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/LflEn6WMO6ff6iXNRUqYmQIsSsw>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] AD Review: draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:50:16 -0000

Thanks Adam,

I have just submitted a new version that addresses your comments.
Please, take a look and let me know if you have any further comments.

Regards,
 Rifaat


On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:54 AM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

>
> The last call on this document has concluded, and I see no comments other
> than my own AD review. As soon as a new version of the document is in the
> repository, I'll get it scheduled on the next telechat. Thanks!
>
> /a
>
> On 8/29/19 5:41 PM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
>
> Thanks Adam!
>
> I will fix these issues in the next version of the draft.
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:11 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> This is my AD review for draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme.
>>
>> First of all, I want to thank to everyone who put work into making
>> this happen. It's good to be putting in place a more secure
>> authentication mechanism.
>>
>> I find no showstoppers in this version of the document, and will be
>> requesting
>> IETF last call on it shortly. I did find some minor issues, described
>> below,
>> that should be treated the same as any other last call comments.
>>
>> /a
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §1.1:
>>
>> Please update to use the boilerplate in RFC 8174.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §2.5:
>>
>>  >  The
>>  >  ordering of the header field values from the various proxies is not
>>  >  significant.
>>
>> The phrasing here is a bit confusing, and can be read as contradicting the
>> sentence it follows. I believe what you mean to say can be conveyed with
>> something more like:
>>
>>     The ordering of values received from proxies relative to values
>>     received from other proxies is not significant.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §2.6:
>>
>>  >  1.  The URI included in the challenge has the following BNF:
>>
>> Please cite RFC 5234.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> §3:
>>
>>  >  This opens the system to the potential of a downgrade attack by man-
>>  >  in-the-middle.
>>
>> The phrasing here is a bit awkward. I might suggest rephrasing as:
>> "...a downgrade attack by an on-path attacker."
>>
>>
>>
>