From nobody Thu Nov 6 17:32:55 2014 Return-Path: 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 8BBB81ACE4D; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:32:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 gRMLf6yULp88; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026011ACE55; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:32:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C48A0181C99; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:32:21 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20141107013221.C48A0181C99@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:32:21 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/VhnBwvuUhxvqzDG2JHwF52t-j0s Cc: straw@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [straw] RFC 7403 on A Media-Based Traceroute Function for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 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" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 01:32:45 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7403 Title: A Media-Based Traceroute Function for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Author: H. Kaplan Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: November 2014 Mailbox: hadrielk@yahoo.com Pages: 7 Characters: 15108 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-03.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7403.txt SIP already provides the ability to perform hop-by-hop traceroute for SIP messages using the Max-Forwards header field to determine the reachability path of requests to a target. A mechanism for media-loopback calls has also been defined separately, which enables test calls to be generated that result in media being looped back to the originator. This document describes a means of performing hop-by-hop traceroute-style test calls using the media-loopback mechanism to test the media path when SIP sessions go through media-relaying back-to-back user agents (B2BUAs). This document is a product of the Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Wed Nov 12 18:17:46 2014 Return-Path: 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 859B51A1ACE for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:17:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ZBVmrqPXqr7m for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADD941A1AB9 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:17:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id sAD2HbaR027048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:17:37 GMT Received: from DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id sAD2Hb5d020572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:17:37 +0100 Received: from DEMUHTC006.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.37) by DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:17:37 +0100 Received: from DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.5.75]) by DEMUHTC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:17:36 +0100 From: "Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "straw@ietf.org" , ext Christer Holmberg , ext Victor Pascual Thread-Topic: Raw notes from Honolulu STRAW session Thread-Index: Ac/+5uP17IWSWwEKSwawwOil2qvL7A== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:17:36 +0000 Message-ID: <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF81951D9E4@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.108] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 4802 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1415845057-0000437E-18B7F542/0/0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/rvgv4kRjAQMZ2WRLl7gicqEaflo Subject: [straw] Raw notes from Honolulu STRAW session 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" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:17:42 -0000 Resending due to email errors... Hi STRAWers, Here are my raw notes from today's session. Kind regards, Uwe WEDNESDAY, November 12, 2014 1520-1650 HST Wednesday Afternoon Session II -- Hibiscus Agenda bashing and IETF Note Well (Chairs) 5min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D There were no changes to the agenda. WG status (Chairs) 10min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-0.pptx =20 The chair presented the status:=20 Since Toronto, we have RFC7403 published. There is an individual draft prop= osing a resolution to the controversial debate regarding DTLS-SRTP. The STU= N and RTCP drafts are active WG items. draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp (Lorenzo M.) 30min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-3.pdf =20 Presentation (Lorenzo):=20 The new version of the draft has updated the terminology to be in line with= the RTP grouping taxonomy. Some changes regarding NACK/retransmissions (to= avoid SRTP retransmission errors at the receiving side). Solutions mainly = from RFC4588. Further, the draft now clarifies that end2end security is bro= ken, i.e. users need to trust the B2BUA. The way this was formulated was al= ready criticized at the list. However, if we want to avoid this controversy= completely, we would need to give up Media aware and Media termination cas= es. However, schemes like this are already deployed. Discussion:=20 Jonathan stated that in AVTCore, there was a discussion about middleboxes m= odifying RTCP headers. Does straw want to give guidance regarding this as p= art of this draft? It was suggested that Jonathan sends this as review comm= ent to the list. draft-ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp (Tiru R.) 30min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-3.pdf =20 Chair's intro:=20 In Toronto, it was criticized that this is about man-in-the-middle attacks = and this will not fly. STRAW should either reduce the scope and only talk a= bout media relays or drop the work completely. The chair asked whether ther= e was any objection in the group to this proposal. There was none; hence, S= TRAW will _not_ define DTLS B2BUA behavior and only focus on media relays.= =20 Presentation by Tiru: The presentation distinguishes between media relay, media aware and media t= ermination use cases. For each mode, Tiru described security risks and poss= ible mitigations.=20 Discussion regarding the text on STIR / malicious B2BUA in media-relay sect= ion: It was questioned why STIR usage is in scope of this document. This may cre= ate the impression that the use of this technology is required for a B2BUA.= =20 Change proposal: We should just cite the STIR document and state that this = is a possibility to mitigate the attack, nothing more. More generally, the = draft should just provide guidance to the B2BUA - "don't touch the fingerpr= int". Otherwise, mechanisms like STIR (and possibly others, reference them)= will detect an error.=20 Discussion on multi-encryption in media-aware: Proposed changes: There might be a short section on media-aware modes and w= hy they are currently not in the document. We should also briefly mention u= pcoming new activities such as draft-cheng-srtp-cloud-00) that look at sepa= rate encryption of header and payload which may provide a solution for this= issue mid-term.=20 Discussion on Media-terminator: Proposed changes: Again, we could have a note that there is no end-to-end s= ecurity guarantee but that the B2BUA is the endpoint of the security contex= t, and that this document does not detail this mode further. Way forward: update draft with these changes, then call for adoption. Next steps (Chairs) 5min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D - RTCP document: Review, then WGLC - DTLS document: Update according to discussion in this meeting, then call = for adoption - STUN draft: not discussed here, encourage WG to read and provide comments= on the list =A0 From nobody Wed Nov 12 22:32:41 2014 Return-Path: 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 02A9E1A1BCD for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:32:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 zdYtsSRRFIJS for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD1C1A19F4 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from resomta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.228]) by resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id EuYb1p0014vw8ds01uYbZT; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:32:35 +0000 Received: from dhcp-8ba0.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.139.160]) by resomta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id EuWN1p00M3Tptvj01uWS2Q; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:30:33 +0000 Message-ID: <54644FFE.4080903@alum.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:30:22 -1000 From: Paul Kyzivat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: straw@ietf.org References: <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF81951D9E4@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF81951D9E4@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1415860355; bh=1qmIUSQZrTVYLlXkgCBrasflAo0nqsh3RkAQ8SXoQyU=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=r2/2TVXjX7Di4OWElrhSTnzQm+RuRTSr8xkKsm95PHOaXkDR7Kd+pF0HQm6194Xov 4lDNkTXnx0VGlFf619tmsWNrNpp4Kg9O+MLeqTqODpV+28W3V2EsMJeO3LDnOZSQG5 A8kg9bfnfamvA6PVCPF83cf5vYWAve+iI0Rpb3riglzWXthIUqPLsZUQCQD3eCJ0f7 fHsFUX0+WlyTwKsurTghfm/bgSS5Yc3eOdbe1VuID6zDl3zkMB+z3yp2Pyxmw1OITG TERgD7sx/MDX3kGFYN+wTQ8QghYfrs5BIXIPsqdMQuLbxLTTFBlhLftAMpaP5ItlEP N71sIpzJg8UOQ== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/43cvPlLsF0it63WohDSIrBxuUjE Subject: Re: [straw] Raw notes from Honolulu STRAW session 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" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:32:39 -0000 Here are my notes from the Straw session. (Uwe did a much better job than I did.) * draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp - Lorenzo M. media path security is the big issue – controversial elsewhere. Will talk about this a little later. Christer proposes to sent notice to avtcore about this. He asks for people to review. Jonathan: avtcore talked about RTP header extensions. He thinks there is need for some buidance on those. Asks if it should be addressed in this document. Christer asked Jonathan to submit that comment as a review on this document. But don’t want to expand the document scope much. * draft-ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp - Tiru R. Christer Holmberg (as chair): noted that this draft was criticized at IETF90 for sanctioning MiTH attacks. He asked if the group was willing to reduce scope to fix this. The group agreed to reduce the scope of this document - it won’t discuss DTLS behavior for media B2BUAs, only covering DTLS for media relays. Richard Barnes (during discussion of malicious B2BUA media relay): why go into detail about identity mgmt.? E2E security requires identity management. Jonathan Lennox: cite STIR documents and ensure we don’t break STIR. Richard: since this is guidance for B2BUA, the guidance should be “don’t mess with fingerprints” because they are used by STIR, WebRTC, etc. Richard: should briefly mention of why the out of scope modes aren’t being discussed. For instance, that we don’t have a solution now, but work is in progress. (E.g., draft…srtp-cloud.) Jonathan (re Media Terminator): this type is by definition a MiTM. Richard: same story here: as above, just a statement of why things aren’t being discussed. Martin Dolly: ATTs definition of “end” differently (so that some components we are calling middleboxes are really the “end”) so some B2BUA middleboxes aren’t really MiTM attacks. Richard: however you define “end”, if you have one of these between B2BUAs between those ends you don’t have security. Thanks, Paul On 11/12/14 4:17 PM, Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > Resending due to email errors... > > Hi STRAWers, > > Here are my raw notes from today's session. > > Kind regards, > Uwe > > > WEDNESDAY, November 12, 2014 > 1520-1650 HST Wednesday Afternoon Session II -- Hibiscus > > > Agenda bashing and IETF Note Well (Chairs) 5min > ====================================================== > There were no changes to the agenda. > > > WG status (Chairs) 10min > ====================================================== > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-0.pptx > > The chair presented the status: > Since Toronto, we have RFC7403 published. There is an individual draft proposing a resolution to the controversial debate regarding DTLS-SRTP. The STUN and RTCP drafts are active WG items. > > > draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp (Lorenzo M.) 30min > ====================================================== > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-3.pdf > > Presentation (Lorenzo): > The new version of the draft has updated the terminology to be in line with the RTP grouping taxonomy. Some changes regarding NACK/retransmissions (to avoid SRTP retransmission errors at the receiving side). Solutions mainly from RFC4588. Further, the draft now clarifies that end2end security is broken, i.e. users need to trust the B2BUA. The way this was formulated was already criticized at the list. However, if we want to avoid this controversy completely, we would need to give up Media aware and Media termination cases. However, schemes like this are already deployed. > > Discussion: > Jonathan stated that in AVTCore, there was a discussion about middleboxes modifying RTCP headers. Does straw want to give guidance regarding this as part of this draft? It was suggested that Jonathan sends this as review comment to the list. > > > draft-ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp (Tiru R.) 30min > ====================================================== > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-3.pdf > > Chair's intro: > In Toronto, it was criticized that this is about man-in-the-middle attacks and this will not fly. STRAW should either reduce the scope and only talk about media relays or drop the work completely. The chair asked whether there was any objection in the group to this proposal. There was none; hence, STRAW will _not_ define DTLS B2BUA behavior and only focus on media relays. > > Presentation by Tiru: > The presentation distinguishes between media relay, media aware and media termination use cases. For each mode, Tiru described security risks and possible mitigations. > > Discussion regarding the text on STIR / malicious B2BUA in media-relay section: > It was questioned why STIR usage is in scope of this document. This may create the impression that the use of this technology is required for a B2BUA. > Change proposal: We should just cite the STIR document and state that this is a possibility to mitigate the attack, nothing more. More generally, the draft should just provide guidance to the B2BUA - "don't touch the fingerprint". Otherwise, mechanisms like STIR (and possibly others, reference them) will detect an error. > > Discussion on multi-encryption in media-aware: > Proposed changes: There might be a short section on media-aware modes and why they are currently not in the document. We should also briefly mention upcoming new activities such as draft-cheng-srtp-cloud-00) that look at separate encryption of header and payload which may provide a solution for this issue mid-term. > > Discussion on Media-terminator: > Proposed changes: Again, we could have a note that there is no end-to-end security guarantee but that the B2BUA is the endpoint of the security context, and that this document does not detail this mode further. > > Way forward: update draft with these changes, then call for adoption. > > > Next steps (Chairs) 5min > ====================================================== > - RTCP document: Review, then WGLC > - DTLS document: Update according to discussion in this meeting, then call for adoption > - STUN draft: not discussed here, encourage WG to read and provide comments on the list > > > > > _______________________________________________ > straw mailing list > straw@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw > From nobody Fri Nov 14 22:24:17 2014 Return-Path: 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 2CBA71A1AC4 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:13:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 TfxCtXH4qtjS for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:13:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 212191A1AB5 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id sAD2DW8Y021632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:13:32 GMT Received: from DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.35]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id sAD2DWva004189 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:13:32 +0100 Received: from DEMUHTC010.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.41) by DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:13:31 +0100 Received: from DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.5.75]) by DEMUHTC010.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:13:31 +0100 From: "Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "straw@ietf.org" , ext Christer Holmberg , ext Victor Pascual Thread-Topic: Raw notes from Honolulu STRAW session Thread-Index: Ac/+5uP17IWSWwEKSwawwOil2qvL7A== Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:13:31 +0000 Message-ID: <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF81951D99D@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.108] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 4766 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1415844812-0000437E-9313637D/0/0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/_v-gXoY53UNvBbTEdDnL9Z3VY44 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:24:15 -0800 Subject: [straw] Raw notes from Honolulu STRAW session 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" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:13:39 -0000 Hi STRAWers, Here are my raw notes from today's session. Kind regards, Uwe WEDNESDAY, November 12, 2014 1520-1650 HST Wednesday Afternoon Session II -- Hibiscus Agenda bashing and IETF Note Well (Chairs) 5min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D There were no changes to the agenda. WG status (Chairs) 10min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-0.pptx =20 The chair presented the status:=20 Since Toronto, we have RFC7403 published. There is an individual draft prop= osing a resolution to the controversial debate regarding DTLS-SRTP. The STU= N and RTCP drafts are active WG items. draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp (Lorenzo M.) 30min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-3.pdf =20 Presentation (Lorenzo):=20 The new version of the draft has updated the terminology to be in line with= the RTP grouping taxonomy. Some changes regarding NACK/retransmissions (to= avoid SRTP retransmission errors at the receiving side). Solutions mainly = from RFC4588. Further, the draft now clarifies that end2end security is bro= ken, i.e. users need to trust the B2BUA. The way this was formulated was al= ready criticized at the list. However, if we want to avoid this controversy= completely, we would need to give up Media aware and Media termination cas= es. However, schemes like this are already deployed. Discussion:=20 Jonathan stated that in AVTCore, there was a discussion about middleboxes m= odifying RTCP headers. Does straw want to give guidance regarding this as p= art of this draft? It was suggested that Jonathan sends this as review comm= ent to the list. draft-ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp (Tiru R.) 30min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-straw-3.pdf =20 Chair's intro:=20 In Toronto, it was criticized that this is about man-in-the-middle attacks = and this will not fly. STRAW should either reduce the scope and only talk a= bout media relays or drop the work completely. The chair asked whether ther= e was any objection in the group to this proposal. There was none; hence, S= TRAW will _not_ define DTLS B2BUA behavior and only focus on media relays.= =20 Presentation by Tiru: The presentation distinguishes between media relay, media aware and media t= ermination use cases. For each mode, Tiru described security risks and poss= ible mitigations.=20 Discussion regarding the text on STIR / malicious B2BUA in media-relay sect= ion: It was questioned why STIR usage is in scope of this document. This may cre= ate the impression that the use of this technology is required for a B2BUA.= =20 Change proposal: We should just cite the STIR document and state that this = is a possibility to mitigate the attack, nothing more. More generally, the = draft should just provide guidance to the B2BUA - "don't touch the fingerpr= int". Otherwise, mechanisms like STIR (and possibly others, reference them)= will detect an error.=20 Discussion on multi-encryption in media-aware: Proposed changes: There might be a short section on media-aware modes and w= hy they are currently not in the document. We should also briefly mention u= pcoming new activities such as draft-cheng-srtp-cloud-00) that look at sepa= rate encryption of header and payload which may provide a solution for this= issue mid-term.=20 Discussion on Media-terminator: Proposed changes: Again, we could have a note that there is no end-to-end s= ecurity guarantee but that the B2BUA is the endpoint of the security contex= t, and that this document does not detail this mode further. Way forward: update draft with these changes, then call for adoption. Next steps (Chairs) 5min =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D - RTCP document: Review, then WGLC - DTLS document: Update according to discussion in this meeting, then call = for adoption - STUN draft: not discussed here, encourage WG to read and provide comments= on the list =A0