Last Call Review of draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-04
review-ietf-jmap-websocket-04-secdir-lc-johansson-2020-01-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-jmap-websocket
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-12-19
Requested 2019-12-05
Authors Ken Murchison
Draft last updated 2020-01-09
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Bob Briscoe (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Leif Johansson
State Completed
Review review-ietf-jmap-websocket-04-secdir-lc-johansson-2020-01-09
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/SssjZ-LPlvpPN4vB7vI8juxhdB8
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2020-01-09

Review
review-ietf-jmap-websocket-04-secdir-lc-johansson-2020-01-09

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

I apologize for being very late with this review and since this is already
in the IESG process it is clearly ok to completely ignore this review!

In summary I think the security considerations sections have a few
issues. In particular several of the identified security issues in section
10 of RFC 6455 place requirements on implementations and profiles
but JMAP websocket makes no effort to expand on those requirements.

For instance is the intention of jmap websocket to be built into non-
browser clients so section 10.1 applies (or not)? What are the authentication
requirements of jmap websocket (section 10.5) etc.

I think the security considerations should make an attempt to cover this
if at all possible.