Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements-07.txt

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:35:33 +0200

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft talks about security requirements of the SIP media. As
such the whole document talks about security. I do not have any
security comments for it, but I have some other comments and notes
about it.

The biggest problem I had when I was reading the document, was that
section 3, suddenly starts listing different requirements like
R-PASS-MEDIA, R-PASS-SIG etc, and there is no indication where those
are described. I tried to look for them in the table of contents, but
couldn't find them listed there.

Reading forward I finally found those in the section 5, but as they
are not as separate sections there, they were not listed in the table
of contents. It would be better to move each of those requirement to
separate subsection, i.e. make "5.1.1 R-FORK-RETARGET" and so on, so
those references earlier could point to section 5.1.1 and those would
also be listed in the table of contents.

There is also unexpanded acronym of UAC in section 4.2, and I do not
what it means and it is not expanded or described in any way. There
seemed to be also quite a lot of other acronyms, so it would be useful
to check out if those are really described (or expanded) somewhere in
the document.

Also it would be useful to expand HERFP also in the section 5.1 when
describing R-HERFP, not only section 4.2. Now the description of
R-HERFP does not tell that much: "The media security key management
protocol MUST function securely even in the presence of HERFP
behavior." especially if reader doesn't remember what HERFP stands
for...

The description of R-RTP-VALID seems bit odd. It says that "...key
negotiation packets MUST NOT pass the RTP validity check...". That
seems bit odd considering that the name is R-RTP-VALID and it says
MUST NOT pass validity check. Is that description really correct?

Some nits:

Section 8. Acknowledgements has Richard Barnes twice.

Section A.4.3. SSRC and ROC has typo in word binding: "Another, used
by Security Descriptions, is to use "late bindng" -- ...
-- 
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir