Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: IETF#90: Draft STRAW minutes]
"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Wed, 29 October 2014 23:51 UTC
Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B737E1ACD64 for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 BDQINN7bVILC for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com [162.222.225.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598561AC3F3 for <straw@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.167.248.173]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9D328E28053; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:50:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1414626665; bh=yowk8h6XskacdlTRJsrs3GMIAKnEhWhkUxY0YRBKvSE=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GHwIw8IYeMzWhyK9auh2s0Iy+tFk1dkU5sG5oqtXBxQHkrbrPYh8h8ctI6+rudtlD xsbr4JC6ZbOHp1sIniPoPF1zrZjwHKVp7vdiuONxcLZHZMR3HuT200kImTvwYBjvqJ MMCMZgcS2DZkwYIex3Fsb0IWqkLpOSPK0+26+WJM=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Lorenzo Miniero' <lorenzo@meetecho.com>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D3D5B73@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <015701cfab96$5eb380a0$1c1a81e0$@co.in> <53D8BC2D.6050408@cs.tcd.ie> <01f701cff306$cdddeb20$6999c160$@co.in> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D4D25F2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <20141029081910.6d592960@rainpc>
In-Reply-To: <20141029081910.6d592960@rainpc>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:20:37 +0530
Message-ID: <003601cff3d3$313f1320$93bd3960$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac/zSKulC3H+7819SOi3HOXT2GcG4AAh4JJg
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.54517D69.0078, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules: C_4847,
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/9dPXzd9d9whsHIuoHYlAZkzEW-s
Cc: 'Richard Barnes' <rlb@ipv.sx>, 'Sean Turner' <TurnerS@ieca.com>, straw@ietf.org, 'Stephen Farrell' <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: IETF#90: Draft STRAW minutes]
X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" <straw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/>
List-Post: <mailto:straw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:51:32 -0000
Hi Lorenzo, I'm not seeing the convincing mechanism in your proposal which overcome MITM issue except trusting B2BUA. The most complex requirement in your e-mail is that <snip> " Without preventing additional mechanismsto be involved for > end-to-end validation of some kind, of course. </snip> Could you please elaborate end-to-end validation in your mind. Thanks Partha > -----Original Message----- > From: Lorenzo Miniero [mailto:lorenzo@meetecho.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:49 PM > To: Christer Holmberg > Cc: Parthasarathi R; 'Stephen Farrell'; straw@ietf.org; 'Richard > Barnes'; 'Sean Turner' > Subject: Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: IETF#90: > Draft STRAW minutes] > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:49:17 +0000 > Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > (As co-chair) > > > > Hi, > > > > If anyone has an issue with the general approach suggested by Partha, > please indicate to on the list, so that we in Honolulu can focus on the > technical aspects. > > > > > I'm not convinced that we should give up on those. Media Aware and > Media Termination are part of the STRAW taxonomy, and act as if they > just didn't exist doesn't seem the right thing to do IMHO. > > In Toronto it has been made clear that there are issues and concerns > about what looked like standardizing a MITM for media. My personal > feeling is that this can be considered mostly a matter of trust. The > B2BUA should not necessarily be a sneaky or "transparent" component as > long as participants are involved. This means that, as long as I trust > the B2BUA in any scenario that involves Media Aware/Terminartion stuff, > and so trust the B2BUA to secure the session on the other end or not do > anything I didn't sign up for, the B2BUA is actually my "peer" in that > respect. Without preventing additional mechanismsto be involved for > end-to-end validation of some kind, of course. Everytihng outside of > that is, I agree, MITM and shouldn't be avalled or fostered in any way. > > These are just some thoughts I tried to give to the idea, and how I > basically changed the related text in the RTCP draft as well to try and > address the issue, so I guess there will be plenty of time to bash me > when I talk about this in Honolulu :-) > > Lorenzo > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parthasarathi R [mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in] > > Sent: 29. lokakuuta 2014 1:28 > > To: 'Stephen Farrell'; Christer Holmberg; straw@ietf.org > > Cc: 'Richard Barnes'; 'Sean Turner' > > Subject: RE: B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: [straw] IETF#90: > Draft STRAW minutes] > > > > Hi all, > > > > One of the way to address MITM issue in STRAW WG B2BUA handling of > DTLS-SRTP milestone is to focus only on Media relay (Sec 3.1 of draft- > ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-00) and removing "Media Aware or Media > Termination" (Sec 3.2 of draft-ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp-00). > > > > By this proposal, the scope of the work is to cover only end-to-end > DTLS-SRTP through B2BUA. The media relay provides end-to-end security > but there are challenges w.r.t NAT, forking, ICE, identity (RTCWeb IdP, > RFC4474bis, etc.,) which shall be sorted out in this milestone. > > > > During IETF-90 and in the mailing alias, I haven't heard any concern > for Media relay handling in B2BUA. please let me know your opinion on > the same. > > > > Thanks > > Partha > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:05 PM > > > To: Parthasarathi R; 'Christer Holmberg'; straw@ietf.org > > > Cc: 'Richard Barnes'; 'Sean Turner' > > > Subject: Re: B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: [straw] IETF#90: > > > Draft STRAW minutes] > > > > > > > > > on vacation, back in a week > > > > > > terminating DTLS-SRTP is maybe fine but means being one of the > > > endpoints intended to be involved in the TLS session. Doing a MITM > on > > > TLS is not at all fine. > > > > > > S. > > > > > > On 30/07/14 02:34, Parthasarathi R wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have different view than the security folks look at this draft. > > > This draft > > > > intention is not to violate RFC 2804. In case this draft is not > > > > standardized, all B2BUA handling DTLS-SRTP will end up in > violating > > > RFC 2804 > > > > due to the lack of guidelines/standards to follow. Please look > into > > > this > > > > draft from SIP recording architecture in B2BUA (Fig 1 of RFC > 7245) > > > usage > > > > perspective wherein the senders/receiver is informed about the > call > > > > recording (like call centre usage scenario) and no RFC 2804 > > > violation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In IETF-90 meeting, the security concerns are raised about this > > > > draft > > > usage. > > > > It will be good to document as part of this document if it is > really > > > > security issue. I'm not seeing any major security concerns as > B2BUA > > > is yet > > > > another UA. Please let me know the list of security concern > specific > > > to > > > > B2BUA in DTLS-SRTP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In reality, B2BUA terminating DTLS-SRTP is not avoidable because > of > > > the > > > > different codec profile between the deployed SIP UAs. Say SIPoWS > in > > > browser > > > > (WebRTC endpoint/SIP UA) uses Opus/G711/VP8 as a codec as of > today > > > and SIP > > > > Mobile devices uses AMR/AMR-WB/H.264. There is a compulsion to > > > terminate the > > > > media in the middle as there is no solution exists in IETF for > the > > > same. The > > > > lack of standard leads to proprietary session border controller > > > > (SBC) solutions which breaks other SIP enhancements as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Partha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: straw [mailto:straw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer > > > Holmberg > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 7:54 PM > > > > To: straw@ietf.org > > > > Cc: Richard Barnes (rlb@ipv.sx); Sean Turner; Stephen Farrell > > > > Subject: [straw] IETF#90: Draft STRAW minutes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Co-chair) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Below are the STRAW minutes that the chairs intend to upload. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, before we do that, we would like to ask the community to > > > take a > > > > look at least at the notes associated with the DTLS-SRTP > > > presentation, as it > > > > caused lots of discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the minutes do not contain who-said-what information > (that > > > can be > > > > found elsewhere), but if you think there are some important > things > > > missing, > > > > or if you think something is wrong, please let the chairs now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christer & Victor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IETF 90 - STRAW > > > > > > > > 1150-1320 EDT Friday Afternoon Session I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Topic: Agenda bashing, IETF Note Well and WG status > > > > > > > > Presenter: Christer Holmberg (co-chair) > > > > > > > > Slides: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-0.pdf > > > > > > > > Draft: N/A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No issues were identified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Topic: Guidelines to support RTCP in B2BUAs > > > > > > > > Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero > > > > > > > > Slides: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-1.pdf > > > > > > > > Draft: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was indicated that XR needs to be looked into, to see whether > > > something > > > > needs to be covered in the draft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was indicated that the terminology will be aligned with the > > > > grouping-taxonomy draft. In case there are conflicts, or other > > > > issues > > > are > > > > found, the STRAW community is requested to provide comments on > the > > > > grouping-taxonomy draft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was requested whether the draft should also cover RTP specific > > > issues. It > > > > was indicated that the scope of the RTCP, and that we should be > very > > > careful > > > > about introducing RTP issues. It was recommended to talk to Colin > > > Perkins > > > > whether he has any opinions regarding the need to cover RTP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was asked how the document will relate to the work on > multisource > > > > optimisation taking place in AVTEXT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was indicated that the text recommending man in the middle > > > functionality > > > > for SRTP most likely will cause issues with IESG. After the > > > > DTLS-SRTP discussion (see further down) it was suggested that the > > > > RTCP draft > > > should > > > > not talk about SRTP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Topic: Taxonomy Discussion > > > > > > > > Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero > > > > > > > > Slides: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-2.pdf > > > > > > > > Draft: All STRAW deliveries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was agreed the STRAW shall use the terms in the avtext- > grouping- > > > taxonomy > > > > document in preference to definitions elsewhere is they are > > > appropriate, > > > > with a note indicating any differences in other documents that > may > > > influence > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Topic: STUN handling in B2BUAs > > > > > > > > Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero (on behalf of the draft authors) > > > > > > > > Slides: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-3.pdf > > > > > > > > Draft: draft-ram-straw-b2bua-stun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was indicated that B2BUA, due to policy reasons, may strip > > > candidates > > > > from SDP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was indicated that B2BUAs must be very careful to not perform > > > actions > > > > that will cause ICE mismatch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The chair informed the community that a WG adoption request will > be > > > sent out > > > > within the upcoming weeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was indicated that the group needs to follow the ICE bis work > > > taking > > > > place in MMUSIC, in case there will be any impacts on the STRAW > > > draft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Topic: DTLS-SRTP handling in B2BUAs > > > > > > > > Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero (on behalf of the draft authors) > > > > > > > > Slides: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-4.pdf > > > > > > > > Draft: draft-ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presentation triggered lots of discussions and controversy, > as > > > > it > > > was > > > > seen as an attempt to standardize MITM (man in the middle > > > procedures). While > > > > people did realize such actions take place in deployments, they > > > claimed that > > > > IETF/STRAW should not standardize such procedures. It was also > > > indicated > > > > that it goes against a number of BCP specifications, and RFC > 2804. > > > Others > > > > indicated that the purpose is to make sure that entities doing > this > > > kind of > > > > functionality do it in a way which does not cause > interoperability > > > problems, > > > > which could cause people to not use security to begin with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was indicated that one possible way forward could be to simply > > > document, > > > > in an informal delivery, how different vendors do things in the > > > network, but > > > > in such case the vendors should also be listed in the document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before the draft is adopted as a WG item, further discussions > need > > > > to > > > take > > > > place. The ADs will help with finding the correct people > (security, > > > IESG, > > > > etc) to involve in such discussions. The chair indicated that the > > > draft > > > > implements a charter delivery, but that one possible outcome will > be > > > to > > > > remove/re-scope the charter delivery. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > straw mailing list > > straw@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw > > > -- > Lorenzo Miniero, COB > > Meetecho s.r.l. > Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools > http://www.meetecho.com
- [straw] IETF#90: Draft STRAW minutes Christer Holmberg
- [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: IETF… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Christer Holmberg
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [straw] IETF#90: Draft STRAW minutes Parthasarathi R
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [straw] IETF#90: Draft STRAW minutes Mary Barnes
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Christer Holmberg
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Christer Holmberg
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [straw] B2BUA handling in DTLS-SRTP [was RE: … Lorenzo Miniero