Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02
review-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02-secdir-lc-roca-2015-06-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-06-23
Requested 2015-06-05
Authors Robert Sparks
Draft last updated 2015-06-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -02 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02-secdir-lc-roca-2015-06-25
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-06-25

Review
review-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02-secdir-lc-roca-2015-06-25

Hello,

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.

Summary: almost ready

I have several questions and suggestions WRT the 

Security Section

.

It is said that: « With this update, there may multiple subscribers to any given refer event state."

So what? What are the implications from a security point of view?

IMHO, the third paragraph does not make an appropriate use of the normative vocabulary.

For instance, it is said: 

 

"the URI should be constructed so that it is not easy to guess, and should be protected against eavesdroppers"

Shouldn’t the author use « SHOULD » on both occasions?

The following sentence is ambiguous. It says:

 

"For instance, SIP messages containing this URI SHOULD be sent using TLS or DTLS..."

"SHOULD" and "For instance" are contradictory. I suggest removing "For instance".

Similarly, next sentence says: "can redirect". I think "SHOULD" redirect is more appropriate.

Finally the same remark (i.e. use « SHOULD") can be done for the next two sentences about additional authorization

mechanisms.

In the 4th paragraph, it is not clear to me why it is said that there is « a factor of 11 amplification due to retransmissions

of the request ». What are the foundations for this « 11 » factor? And what happens if the victim is SIP aware?

Additionally, I have concerns about 

backward compatibility

.

The mechanisms introduced by this extension may not be backward compatible with RFC 3515 (see section 7).

However I don’t see any discussion in the current document.

There are some guidelines in RFC 6656 (8.3.1) concerning the 202 response code, but what is described in the first

paragraph is new to this document.

Typo, section 8: « be » is missing in the following sentence:

 

« With this update, there may multiple subscribers to any given refer event state."

Cheers,

   Vincent

Attachment:


signature.asc




Description:

 Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail