Problems with Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Long-Term Authentication for Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)
draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-05
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-18 for -04)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document. Here are two editorial notes for you to consider. --- The use of upper case "MUST" in a pseudo-quote from RFC5766 seems unnecessary. --- A little work on abbreviations is needed... I don't believe TURN or STUN are "well-known abbreviations" according to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt so you should expand them in: - document title - Abstract - main document on first use (you do this for TURN, but note that the referenced 5766 uses a different expansion from the one you use!) Is there some inconsistency between WebRTC and RTCWEB? ICE should be expanded on first use. You have expanded it two paragraphs later.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-20)
Unknown
I am interested to see the responses to a few of Stephen's questions and don't have any more to add. Thanks for your work on the draft.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-20)
Unknown
A bunch of comments, but all non-blocking or really less. That is, feel free to ignore these unless you think they make the doc better. I'd rather this got out there and we moved on to solutions more quickly compared to waiting for the perfect version of this. section 1: 1st bullet - where is it defined how to use a TURN server for privacy? And I don't actually see how that'd work, unless the caller trusts the TURN server to do it. Might well be my ignorance of TURN though. section 4, point 7: malicious JS is not required, any browser can view the source, including the STUN pwd. section 4: A possible 8th point is that a STUN/TURN server for WebRTC could have to work for many many browsers at which point assuming any secret known to all is a secret is just silly. section 4: Another possible new point is that STUN auth was meant for the WebRTC equivalent of the browser but in fact the web site (via the site's JS) is in control and hence it really ought be the web site that authenticates to the STUN server and not (supposedly) the WebRTC browser. section 4: Yet another - if a WebRTC server sets "per-user" STUN passwords via some form of co-ordination with some STUN/TURN servers, then that will assist in tracking individual user behaviour and so may be a privacy concern. section 4 (or 1): Current STUN/TURN auth essentially forces some centralisation into WebRTC where that ought not be needed. For example, models based on a leap-of-faith could actually be good enough to prevent widespread abuse of resources.