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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 29 August 2019 22:11 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 19514120C1B; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" 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 HMc6NW0iphSU; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:11:55 -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 D5D8312091B; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:11:52 -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 x7TMBoX9025451 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:11:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1567116712; bh=JGr8jtIOWK0qui+/PISqr1SeutJ3WGjphed5SYxcuwA=; h=To:From:Subject:Date; b=QQXBNILZshFY3rFuKImvSmvgcahWXeUlIzD08/HBqptGe+uUHGd2aEQQPqAtcH6aa RtkaJx1Ag7gZ/NSw8nD63KW4qy43ZSEPINBs3xlRx+TWhdo/dpT4+9tjxEg6NduRf0 ANCzkQwHqXptaV14YNH9UoyJRebLJr1ylyLs5j9Q=
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: draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme@ietf.org, 'SIPCORE' <sipcore@ietf.org>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <6c0d98f4-3334-b223-edb9-7fc5970ab028@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:11:45 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/z1cnSSF0ySbRmAHnBvsENS0E_X4>
Subject: [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: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 22:11:57 -0000

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."