Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-uta-xmpp-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Roni, thanks for the review.

On 4/3/15 3:59 AM, Roni Even wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-uta-xmpp-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015–4-3

IETF LC End Date: 2015–4-13

IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an Standard Track  RFC.

Major issues:

I am wondering why this document is a standard track and not
Informational, reading it I get the impression that it repeats text from
RFC6120 and does not provide new normative information.

Ah, I see the confusion.

Earlier versions of this document repeated the recommendations from draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp and explicitly applied them to XMPP. At some point we refactored the document so that it wasn't repeating the text (because that's usually a bad idea - things can get out of sync etc.), but in the process we lost those normative statements.

To fix the problem, I suggest that we change the following paragraph and move it to be the first paragraph of Section 3:

OLD
      NOTE: Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all of the
      recommendations specified in [I-D.ietf-uta-tls-bcp] apply to XMPP.
      In the main, this document merely provides supplementary
      information; those who implement and deploy XMPP technologies are
      expected to follow the recommendations of [I-D.ietf-uta-tls-bcp].

NEW
      XMPP implementations and deployments MUST follow the
      recommendations provided in [I-D.ietf-uta-tls-bcp] unless
      explicitly noted otherwise herein.  Instead of repeating those
      recommendations here, this document mostly provides supplementary
      regarding implementation and deployment of XMPP technologies.

Section 3.1 talks about TLS support and say that it SHOULD be tried  but
since it is a SHOULD I assume that failure may happen and non TLS
connections may be used ( I am not sure what RFC6120 say about it.

Section 3.1 attempts to say this (but clearly we did not phrase things very well): the lack of an indication that a connection endpoint supports TLS SHOULD NOT prevent a connecting entity from attempting TLS negotiation. In fact, I think we could say MUST NOT (the "SHOULD" comes from local policy).

Therefore I suggest the following rewording:

OLD
   The server (i.e., the XMPP receiving entity) to which a client or
   peer server (i.e., the XMPP initiating entity) connects might not
   offer a stream feature of <starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns
   :xmpp-tls'/>.  Although in general this stream feature indicates that
   the server supports XMPP 1.0 and therefore supports TLS, it is
   possible that this stream feature might be stripped out by an
   attacker (see Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-uta-tls-attacks]).  Therefore,
   the initiating entity SHOULD proceed with the stream negotiation even
   if the receiving entity does not advertise support for TLS.
   Similarly, although a receiving entity SHOULD include the <required/>
   child element to indicate that negotiation of TLS is mandatory, an
   initiating entity MUST NOT depend on receiving the <required/> flag
   in determining whether TLS will be enforced for the stream.

NEW
   The server (i.e., the XMPP receiving entity) to which a client or
   peer server (i.e., the XMPP initiating entity) connects might not
   offer a stream feature of <starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns
   :xmpp-tls'/>.  Although in general this stream feature indicates that
   the server supports XMPP 1.0 and therefore supports TLS, it is
   possible that this stream feature might be stripped out by an
   attacker (see Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-uta-tls-attacks]).
   Similarly, the <required/> child element of the <starttls/> stream
   feature is used to indicate that negotiation of TLS is mandatory,
   but could also be stripped out by an attacker. Therefore, the
   initiating entity MUST NOT be deterred from attempting TLS
   negotiation even if the receiving entity does not advertise support
   for TLS.  Instead, the initiating entity SHOULD (based on local
   policy) proceed with the stream negotiation and attempt to negotiate
   TLS.

Section 3.4 may look like authentication is a MUST but section 3.5 talks
about  unauthenticated connections

Well, there are client-to-server connections and server-to-server connections in XMPP. The former need to be authenticated and the latter do not (although we are working on ways to make authentication easier and more pervasive for server-to-server connections). I thought we had captured that in the text, but perhaps not.

On section 3.7 I assume that providing e2e information is based on the
XMPP architecture that may have only one server to server hop.  Are
there other cases?

In Section 3.7 we weren't trying to say that information can be provided about the end-to-end encryption status of all the hops along a communications path because that's impossible (at least in a way that can be trusted). We might adjust the text to avoid any confusion, as follows:

OLD
   o  Determine if a client-to-server or server-to-server connection is
      encrypted and authenticated.
   o  Determine the version of TLS used for a client-to-server or
      server-to-server connection.

NEW
   o  Determine if a given incoming or outgoing XML stream is
      encrypted and authenticated using TLS.
   o  Determine the version of TLS used for a given stream.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]