Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's IESG feedback on draft-ietf-stox-core

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 2/10/14, 3:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 2/10/14, 3:20 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 02/10/2014 06:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> ( + STOX WG since one of the issues might deserve broader discussion )
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen, thanks for your review:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-core/ballot/
>>>
>>> You wrote in part:
>>>
>>>     - I wondered why you didn't just say that (D)TLS SHOULD
>>>     be used/supported between gateways. Given that all the
>>>     relevant bits of code are likely to support that, wouldn't
>>>     it be a good thing?
>>>
>>> Yes, that seems eminently reasonable.
>>
>> Just to be clear - the above is the only DISCUSS point.
>
> Yep.
>
>>>     - Has anyone thought about confusability in the name
>>>     mappings? I expected to see a bit of text in the
>>>     security considerations but didn't see it.
>>>
>>> Confusion is always possible. :-) Were you thinking about confusable
>>> characters from Unicode, or something else?
>>
>> Right. Maybe its all there already and I just didn't see
>> if in the mapping stuff, or maybe not. I'm not sure.
>
> Section 10.5 of draft-ietf-precis-framework has some very nice text
> about visually similar characters. We could borrow from that.
>
>>>     - It seems a shame to not be able to gateway when the To is
>>>     a sips URI at all but I understand that some loss of
>>>     security is inevitable for cases like this. Is there any
>>>     work planned for an update that would allow gatewaying for
>>>     such cases, e.g. if the 1st XMPP server is the one to which
>>>     the user is connected and the user is connected using
>>>     XMPP/TLS?
>>>
>>> Hmm. I cannot say that I am aware of planning for updates to provide
>>> more secure gatewaying, although folks active in the STOX WG might be
>>> thinking along those lines.
>>>
>>> Depending on the deployment architecture, I think there are cases where
>>> it is *possible* to TLS-protect all the hops. For instance, if
>>> sip.example.org has a direct server-to-server connection to
>>> xmpp.example.com (no intermediate hops) and both organizations agree to
>>> force the use of TLS for client connections (e.g., via SLA), then I
>>> suppose that sip.example.com could honor 'sips' URIs when sending
>>> traffic to xmpp.example.com. However, such an arrangement is rare enough
>>> right now that I don't know if it is worth mentioning.
>>
>> Fair enough. I can see that detecting that you (probably) have
>> all (D)TLS hops might be tricky and error prone.
>
> That's how I see it.
>
> Oh, and we at least need to mention DTLS for the UDP cases, though (see
> Section 5 of draft-ietf-stox-core).

Hi Stephen,

We've posted an updated version:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-core/

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-stox-core-10.txt

We haven't yet added any text about visually similar characters, though. 
Let me know what you think of the rest.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/