I believe it would be good to state what version of TLS is mandatory to 
implement. I would suggest TLS 1.2. 
(I assume ALTO needs PK-based server side authentication) 


On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:

> Wendy,
> 
> would a 'MUST implement TLS/SSL' fix your concern? This does say that the 
> implementation must have it, but it does not preclude to use it, e.g., if you 
> operate the ALTO server in your data center only.
> 
>  Martin
> 
> On 03/05/2013 04:39 PM, Wendy Roome wrote:
>> Richard,
>> 
>> Your proposal sounds fine. After all, it's a "motherhood" statement. Who
>> could argue with, "If you need security, etc, use ssl/tls."?
>> 
>> However, I am surprised by the suddenly perceived need for security, and
>> I'd object to anything that implies that the default is to use ssl/tls.
>> I think that will kill the protocol. I'd always thought that ALTO was
>> primarily intended to be a public service that network operators provide
>> to all applications, not an exclusive service available only to a few
>> trusted components. A network operator would provide a public ALTO
>> service because it benefits the operator as well as the client. Sure,
>> some operators might restrict access, but most wouldn't bother. A few
>> observations:
>> 
>> * An ALTO server just returns a limited view of the network
>> statistics. It's not like it gives out launch codes or banking data, or
>> allows a client to change anything. Why is it so important to keep that
>> data secret? Especially if a server can use ordinal mode to obscure the
>> details?
>> 
>> * The only use case in draft 14 is a P2P tracker. By definition, P2P
>> trackers are distributed & anarchistic, and can be run by any Tom, Dick
>> or Sally. I don’t think it's practical to authenticate thousands of P2P
>> tracker clients. Besides, most tracker operators wouldn't hesitate to
>> post their ALTO authentication credentials on the web. :-)
>> 
>> * I can see why an ALTO client might want to authenticate the server, to
>> prevent spoofing. Although that begs the question of why someone would
>> bother to spoof an ALTO server -- how would they benefit?
>> 
>> - Wendy Roome
>> 
>> From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Date: Mon, March 4, 2013 14:35
>> To: Bill Roome <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Cc: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO vs ssl/tls
>> 
>> Hi Wendy,
>> 
>> The context of the change is the following AD Review:
>> 
>> " What security mechanism to use in what scenario. The considerations
>> elaborate on the use of SSL/TLS, but it is not clear when to use it. In
>> general, it seems to be really good, at least by today, to mandate the
>> use of HTTPS in almost any scenario where the traffic crosses a publicly
>> available infrastructure, e.g., the general Internet, wireless access
>> networks, etc. Conversely, it can be good to always mandate the use of
>> HTTPS and to list exceptional cases where it is required, i.e., CDNI
>> peering point."
>> 
>> How about the following revision:
>> 
>> "When server and/or client authentication, encryption, and/or
>> integrity protection are required, ALTO Server MUST support SSL/TLS
>> [RFC5246] as a mechanism. For cases such as a public ALTO service or
>> there is an implicit trust relationship between the client and the
>> server, SSL/TLS may not be necessary."
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> alto mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>> 
> 
> -- 
> [email protected]
> 
> NEC Laboratories Europe
> NEC Europe Limited
> Registered Office:
> Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End  Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB
> Registered in England 2832014
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Reply via email to