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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 11 February 2014 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9438C1A0502; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:49:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zXOAGY8RJKwU; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA45B1A0583; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (unknown [24.8.129.242]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DF6D4032A; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:49:48 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <52FA469B.40203@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:49:47 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <52F91953.8010604@stpeter.im> <52F950B2.2050107@cs.tcd.ie> <52F9581B.9060008@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <52F9581B.9060008@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's IESG feedback on draft-ietf-stox-core
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox/>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:49:52 -0000

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/