IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 17 September 2019 04:55 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 4C3FB1200E9; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 JrzOrXEofSnH; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 45A001200F6; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x8H4sqBc013449 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Sep 2019 23:54:54 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1568696095; bh=1oXV3l3uoLV7wWo9mj+GOCXhFIeZobsHyFoBAmJvq9A=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=KMEPHalqFeLU2wpFnIAfde8Z9CX0W6uCAoruXsq3pG/J3NWisVFaY3a9n9bhvGwCp qEUL1sMBUP8dVKNVwexrPPMKNHXI17chRDX2jHyqui6kSkTuBQcGabk5LC7l8AZ9iR Ur54KgigjV0agcN2tcuQ3q4zznTn/wCxH6eJj7Rw=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
References: <6c0d98f4-3334-b223-edb9-7fc5970ab028@nostrum.com> <CAGL6epLLHb0baJoKO8sgE5j9Y-g+RAQCkYGRJbV+yGL=59t8jA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <38f283af-3d14-df41-40cf-3281c98bc8b4@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 23:54:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGL6epLLHb0baJoKO8sgE5j9Y-g+RAQCkYGRJbV+yGL=59t8jA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------01729875B5DC2E1C5CB140A9"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/YnJovaRsAWDuwcgZhXj0-Jt9okk>
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 04:55:00 -0000

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 
> <mailto: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."
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email