Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:08:10 +0000

WG,

Sorry for getting back late on this. We have addressed the comments given
by Dan. Please find the diffs attached.
I will publish this in a few days if I don¹t receive any further feedback.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <[email-masked]> on behalf of "Dan Wing (dwing)"
<[email-masked]>
Date: Sunday, 7 August 2016 at 12:01 AM
To: "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review
of	draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10

>My review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10 as part of SDP
>directorate review.
>
>
>Section 6.1, "Transport Negotiation" is unclear if it is overriding the
>port handling described in draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05, or merely
>re-stating the port handling described in
>draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05.  That is, the text is not clear if the
>port in the wss-uri override what is in the 'm' line?  I suggest using
>exactly the same phrasing in both documents.  This is stated clearly in
>Section 6.2, and should only be stated once in this document -- or
>perhaps just defer to what draft-ietf-bcpbis-dsp-ws-uri says and not
>attempt to re-discuss it here in this document would be best, no?
>Section 7 seems pretty duplicative of draft-ietf-bcpbis-dsp-ws-uri, too;
>which document is normative where the text disagrees, and if the text is
>word-for-word identical, what purpose is served to repeat it?
>
>nits:  Section 4.1 should clarify that "bFcP" is compared
>case-insensitive, which we all know, but bears repeating.
>
>
>Section 8:
>"   When a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a BFCP WebSocket server, it
>   SHOULD use TCP/WSS as its transport.  The WebSocket client SHOULD
>   inspect the TLS certificate offered by the server and verify that it
>   is valid."
>
>"Is valid" is too vague.  Please add citation to RFC7525, if that is
>appropriate.  Or if RFC7525's procedures are inappropriate, detail what
>steps are performed to determine validity.  It seems the a=fingerprint is
>*not* supposed to be used, right?  Rather, chasing the certificate chain
>is used against the FQDN in the wss-uri.
>
>Section 8:
>"   Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] states that BFCP clients
>   and floor control servers SHOULD authenticate each other prior to
>   accepting messages, and RECOMMENDS that mutual TLS/DTLS
>   authentication be used."
>...
>"   In order to authorize the WebSocket connection, the BFCP WebSocket
>   server MAY inspect any cookie [RFC6265] headers present in the HTTP
>   GET request."
>
>This "MAY" to check cookies is too weak, when the recommendation in
>ietf-bcpbis-rfc4582bis was mutual authentication! The server needs to
>better authorize the client than just a MAY!  I don't understand how this
>document can suggest reducing a SHOULD to a MAY, when we're talking of
>authorizing and authenticating clients.
>
>-d
>
>_______________________________________________
>bfcpbis mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis

---

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:13:57 +0000

Both this draft and its companion draft draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri has
been published now.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <[email-masked]> on behalf of Ram Mohan
Ravindranath <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:38 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10