On 04/16/2018 08:12 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Hi Marc, a few further comments inline. >> >> On 4/16/18 5:43 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay in responding, I was >> traveling for the last 4 weeks. >>> >>> See my responses inline. >>> >>> On 04/02/2018 03:59 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> Reviewer: Peter Saint-Andre >>>> Review result: Ready with Nits >>>> >> >> <snip/> >> >>>> The first paragaraph of Section 6.2.3 restates recommendations from RFC >>>> 7525; why not simply reference that specification? >>> >>> The original text in RFC5389 said this: >>> >>> " When STUN is run by itself over TLS-over-TCP, the >>> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ciphersuite MUST be implemented at a >>> minimum. [...]" >>> >>> The new text is an attempt at updating it in the same spirit of giving >> minimal instructions and complementing them with a reference to RFC 7525 - >> which was the reason for the reference to RFC 7525 there. >>> >>> So I kept the text there, followed by the following paragraph, in >> addition of moving the original last paragraph in the Security >> Consideration section: >>> >>> " These recommendations are just a part of the the recommendations in >>> [RFC7525] that implementations and deployments of a STUN usage using >>> TLS or DTLS SHOULD follow." >> >> I would instead suggest that we do something like Section 2 of RFC 7590 >> for XMPP: >> >> The best current practices documented in the "Recommendations for >> Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525] are included here by reference. >> Instead of repeating those recommendations here, this document mostly >> provides supplementary information regarding secure implementation >> and deployment of XMPP technologies. >> >> Here's the rationale: RFC 7525 is likely to be updated/replaced more >> quickly than STUNbis. If STUNbis recommends a particular cipher suite >> that 7525bis stops recommending, in the absence of STUNter will STUN >> implementations keep following STUNbis or will they upgrade to whatever >> 7525bis recommends? I suggest it will be the former, which is not what >> we want. >> > > I forgot about this in my review, but you should also profile ciphers for > TLS 1.3. > As suggested by Julien Élie, I now use BCP195 as reference. Would that, and a future update of that BCP covering TLS 1.3 satisfy your comment? Thanks. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
