Re: [TLS] [rtcweb] Number of DTLS sessions/DTLS connections; RE: What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux

"Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 05 August 2015 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8DC1B2D93; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 01:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 xljVL1EfJhUm; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 01:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 689BD1B2DA3; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 977C4DB24FF8B; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 08:16:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t758Gvrw008305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:16:57 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.123]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:16:57 +0200
From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Number of DTLS sessions/DTLS connections; RE: What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux
Thread-Index: AQHQz1aGMlfTH2VOiEWUETQoEL7QIZ39Dwuw
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 08:16:56 +0000
Message-ID: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC7ADB91EC@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <SN1PR0301MB1551DF037806CA3522EF0BFAB2760@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B348E82CA@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <SN1PR0301MB15517DD9BF2570136FFD312EB2760@SN1PR0301MB1551.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxtj6nTSuFt=0xdFvJbaThRrE1YEazrU5W3bELkE7UKH=A@mail.gmail.com> <05B3C43B-2823-4590-889E-7A192FC8A3AD@gmail.com> <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC7ADB9197@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B348E8E9F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B348E8E9F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC7ADB91ECFR711WXCHMBA03z_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/qHXDj6VqNnjPR2ioCQdn7kGSkGo>
Cc: "TLS@ietf.org \(tls@ietf.org\)" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [rtcweb] Number of DTLS sessions/DTLS connections; RE: What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 08:17:10 -0000

Christer,
do agree of course.
But independent of the RFC 5764 correction, below clarification proposal for rtcweb-transport remains valid (“due to the sharing assumption”).

Regards,
Albrecht

From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 5. August 2015 10:13
To: Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht); <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Cc: TLS@ietf.org (tls@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Number of DTLS sessions/DTLS connections; RE: What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux

Hi,

We shall not make RFC 5764 corrections in the RTCWEB specs.

Regards,

Christer



From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)
Sent: 5. elokuuta 2015 11:04
To: <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
Cc: TLS@ietf.org<mailto:TLS@ietf.org> (tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>)
Subject: [rtcweb] Number of DTLS sessions/DTLS connections; RE: What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux

Roman, Bernard,
right, RFC 5764 is too vague on that aspect. Thanks for confirming the number of DTLS sessions, which is inline with our understanding.
Would appreciate if this could be somewhere fixed in an rtcweb draft due to significant side effects.
This topic is also an ongoing FAQ.

The most simple case is given by a scenario with usage of bundling plus usage of RTP/RTCP transport multiplexing, leading to a single DTLS session/DTLS connection, which could be then also shared for WebRTC data.

Both capabilities are mandated in the rtp usage draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25#section-4.4
=> bundling
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25#section-4.5
=> RTP/RTCP transport multiplexing

Now, IF bundling is not used OR RTP/RTCP transport multiplexing is not used THEN there will be more than one DTLS session/DTLS connection (either 2 or 4 in case of audio & video).
Raising the question which DTLS connection is used for additional WebRTC data traffic? - Because
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-09#section-3.5
indicates the sharing option.
Would then be a 3rd (or 5th) self-contained DTLS session/DTLS connection for WebRTC data traffic?

Proposal:
Add explicit text to clause https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-09#section-3.5
about (in red), something like:

   WebRTC implementations MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over
   the same port pair, as described in the DTLS-SRTP specification
   [RFC5764], section 5.1.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5764#section-5.1.2>.2>.  All application layer protocol payloads
   over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets.



   Note 1: There will be two DTLS sessions/DTLS connections when RTP/RTCP transport multiplexing is not applied. WebRTC data traffic could still share one of these DTLS connections … (“which one?”) … or There should be then a separate, self-contained DTLS session/DTLS connection established exclusively for WebRTC data.



   Note 2: There are similar considerations in case of bundling.

   Protocol identification MUST be supplied as part of the DTLS
   handshake, as specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-alpn<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-09#ref-I-D.ietf-rtcweb-alpn>]n>].

Comments?
Regards,
Albrecht

PS
Using (D)TLS terminology according to http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-guballa-tls-terminology-01.txt


From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 5. August 2015 04:04
To: Roman Shpount
Cc: Asveren, Tolga; Christer Holmberg; Eric Rescorla; Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht); Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich); <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] What the gateway draft should say about mux/non-mux

On Aug 4, 2015, at 16:33, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com<mailto:roman@telurix.com>> wrote:

Most of the people implement this wrong, since you need to create two DTLS sessions: one for RTP and another for RTCP. And then use different keys or possibly even encryption profiles for RTP and RTCP. I commonly see one session for RTP and keys negotiated there used for both RTP and RTCP, which is wrong.

[BA] Yes, that is only one of several common mistakes.  Unfortunately, RFC 5764 does not rule out all of these and the security documents are not crystal clear on how things must be done. It is much harder to mess up RTP/RTCP mux.  Given what I've seen so far, non-mux could become a support nightmare.