Thanks again for the review. Comments inline. On 03/30/2018 04:45 AM, Dale Worley wrote: > Reviewer: Dale Worley > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16 > Reviewer: Dale R. Worley > Review Date: 2018-03-29 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-20 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-19 > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > The only interesting item concerns section 17.1, where the assignment > of meanings to bits in the "security feature set" value is different > from the assignment in -16. This is either non-upward-compatible with > -16, or there is an error in either -16 or -17. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > There is an issue that shows up in several places: The NAT may > forward the request using an IP family that is different from the IP > family that it received the request using. This means that the > "source IP family of the request" may depend on whether one is > speaking of the client or the server. The draft is cognizant of this, > and mentions its consequences in sections 6.3.3 and 12. But this also > has consequences for ALTERNATE-SERVER: Section 14.15 says "The IP > address family MUST be identical to that of the source IP address of > the request." even though that family might not be usable by the > client. The draft doesn't seem to explicitly say that this comes from > address-switching by the NAT. It would help if there was a > higher-level discussion of this matter, pointing to the various > consequences.
I still do not have text about that but, as this is blocking this response since 2 weeks now, I am releasing it as is and will come back to that after I process the other reviews that accumulated during my time traveling around Europe. > > 3. Terminology > > This section needs to be updated to reference RFC 8174, including > updating the paragraph (especially the final two lines) to read as > specified in RFC 8174: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL > NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", > "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > appear in all capitals, as shown here. Updated. > > 6.2.2. Sending over TCP or TLS-over-TCP > > o if multiplexing other application protocols over that port, has > finished using that other protocol, and > > The two clauses don't match in grammatical number. This should be > either > > o if multiplexing other application protocols over that port, has > finished using those other protocols, and > > or > > o if multiplexing another application protocol over that port, has > finished using that other protocol, and Updated using the former. > > 9.2.4. Receiving a Request > > * If the request contains neither PASSWORD-ALGORITHMS nor > PASSWORD- ALGORITHM, then the request is processed as though > PASSWORD- ALGORITHM were MD5 (Note that if the original > PASSWORD-ALGORITHMS attribute did not contain MD5, this will > result in a 400 Bad Request in a later step below). > > There are two places where s/PASSWORD- ALGORITHM/PASSWORD-ALGORITHM/. Already fixed following a previous review. > > 14.3. USERNAME > > The value of USERNAME is a variable-length value containing the > authentication username. It MUST contain a UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded > sequence of less than 509 bytes, and MUST have been processed using > the OpaqueString profile [RFC8265]. A compliant implementation MUST > be able to parse UTF-8 encoded sequence of less than 763. > > The final "763" is grammatically incorrect. I think you intend > s/763/763 bytes/, to parallel other items. Fixed. > > 14.4. USERHASH > > userhash = SHA-256(Opaque(username) ":" Opaque(realm)) > > I believe that this should be > > userhash = SHA-256(OpaqueString(username) ":" OpaqueString(realm)) Fixed. > > 14.5. MESSAGE-INTEGRITY > > Petit-Huguenin, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 40] > > Internet-Draft Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) March 2018 > > This bit of text appears as body text in the middle of page 40. Already fixed following a previous review. > > 14.6. MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 > > The MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 attribute contains an HMAC-SHA256 > [RFC2104] of the STUN message. The MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 > attribute can be present in any STUN message type. The MESSAGE- > INTEGRITY-SHA256 attribute contains an initial portion of the HMAC- > SHA-256 [RFC2104] of the STUN message. The value will be at most 32 > bytes and MUST be a positive multiple of 4 bytes. The HMAC MUST NOT > be truncated below a minimum size of 16 bytes. The value must be the > full 32 bytes unless the STUN Usage explicitly specifies that > truncation is allowed. STUN Usages may specify a minimum length > longer than 4 bytes. > > This seems to be less clear than it could be. (And my apologies, some > of the redundancy was my suggestion!) Perhaps this is an improvement: > > The value will be at most 32 bytes, MUST be at least 16 bytes, and > MUST be a multiple of 4 bytes. The value must be the full 32 bytes > unless the STUN Usage explicitly specifies that truncation is > allowed. STUN Usages may specify a minimum length longer than 16 > bytes. Applied. > > 17.1. STUN Security Features Registry > > A STUN Security Feature set defines 24 bit as flags. > > IANA is requested to create a new registry containing the STUN > Security Features that are protected by the bid down attack > prevention mechanism described in section Section 9.2.1. > > The initial STUN Security Features are: > > Bit 0: Password algorithms > Bit 1: Username anonymity > Bit 2-23: Unassigned > > Beware that the assignment of features to bits in the security feature > value has changed! Bit numbers are assigned from the left/high-order > end -- see figure 2 in the draft. So the *values* for these bits are: > > 0x400000 Bit 0: Password algorithms > 0x200000 Bit 1: Username anonymity > > But the values assigned in -15 were: > > 0x000001: Password algorithms > 0x000002: Username anonymity Hmm, that was not the intent, and not how I read the text. Even in Figure 2 less significant bits are on the right. So the intent is real tat bit0=0x001, bit1 = 0x002, and so on. All we do is about interoperability, so I added some text that makes that less ambiguous. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
