Skip to main content

Problems with Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Long-Term Authentication for Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)
RFC 7376

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from tram-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems@ietf.org to (None)
2014-09-30
05 (System) RFC published
2014-09-25
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7376">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2014-09-23
05 Spencer Dawkins Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2014-09-23
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7376">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2014-09-18
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-09-12
05 Gonzalo Camarillo


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? …


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational, as indicated in the title page header and on the
corresponding milestone in the charter of the TRAM WG.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document discusses some of the issues with STUN authentication
  for TURN messages.


Working Group Summary:

  This document became a WG item after having been discussed within
  the TRAM community. By the time the document became a WG item, there
  was consensus on its contents. After becoming a WG item the document
  was reviewed by a dedicated reviewer, whose comments were addressed
  by the draft's editors.

Document Quality:

  This is a discussion document that is not intended to be
  implemented.


Personnel:

  Gonzalo Camarillo is the document Shepherd. Spencer Dawkins is the
  responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document as part of its WGLC and
provided a few comments, all of which were addressed in a subsequent
revision of the document. At this point the document is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The consensus behind this document represents a strong concurrence of
the few active participants in the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

ID nits complains about RFC 2119 statements being used in the draft
without having a reference to RFC 2119. Those statements are only used
in order to explain what exactly another RFC specifies. So, it should
be OK.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews are needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967
)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226
).

This document does not request the IANA to perform any action.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No formal language is used in this document.
2014-08-28
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-08-27
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-08-27
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-08-25
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2014-08-25
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-08-25
05 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2014-08-25
05 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-08-25
05 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2014-08-22
05 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2014-08-21
05 Shaun Cooley Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shaun Cooley.
2014-08-21
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-08-20
05 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
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 …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2014-08-20
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2014-08-20
05 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

A bunch of comments, but all non-blocking or really less.
That is, feel free to ignore these unless you think they make
the …
[Ballot comment]

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.
2014-08-20
05 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-08-20
05 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-08-20
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2014-08-20
05 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-08-20
05 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-08-20
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-08-18
05 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2014-08-18
05 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-05.txt
2014-08-18
04 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

Here are two editorial notes for you to consider.

---

The use of …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2014-08-18
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-08-18
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tina Tsou.
2014-08-18
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-08-15
04 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-08-15
04 Brian Carpenter Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter.
2014-08-14
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2014-08-14
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2014-08-13
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-08-11
04 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2014-08-08
04 Spencer Dawkins Ballot has been issued
2014-08-08
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-08-08
04 Spencer Dawkins Created "Approve" ballot
2014-08-08
04 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was changed
2014-08-08
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2014-08-04
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-08-04
04 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA
Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2014-07-30
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2014-07-30
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2014-07-28
04 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-04.txt
2014-07-26
03 Brian Carpenter Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter.
2014-07-25
03 Ram R New version available: draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-03.txt
2014-07-24
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2014-07-24
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2014-07-24
02 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn'
2014-07-24
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2014-07-24
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2014-07-24
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley
2014-07-24
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley
2014-07-18
02 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-07-18
02 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <tram@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <tram@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-02.txt> (Problems with STUN long-term Authentication for TURN) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the TURN Revised and Modernized WG
(tram) to consider the following document:
- 'Problems with STUN long-term Authentication for TURN'
  <draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-02.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-08-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document discusses some of the issues with STUN authentication
  for TURN messages.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2014-07-18
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-08-21
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins Last call was requested
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins Ballot approval text was generated
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was generated
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was changed
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was generated
2014-07-18
02 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was generated
2014-07-07
02 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? …


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational, as indicated in the title page header and on the
corresponding milestone in the charter of the TRAM WG.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document discusses some of the issues with STUN authentication
  for TURN messages.


Working Group Summary:

  This document became a WG item after having been discussed within
  the TRAM community. By the time the document became a WG item, there
  was consensus on its contents. After becoming a WG item the document
  was reviewed by a dedicated reviewer, whose comments were addressed
  by the draft's editors.

Document Quality:

  This is a discussion document that is not intended to be
  implemented.


Personnel:

  Gonzalo Camarillo is the document Shepherd. Ted Lemon is the
  responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document as part of its WGLC and
provided a few comments, all of which were addressed in a subsequent
revision of the document. At this point the document is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The consensus behind this document represents a strong concurrence of
the few active participants in the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

ID nits complains about RFC 2119 statements being used in the draft
without having a reference to RFC 2119. Those statements are only used
in order to explain what exactly another RFC specifies. So, it should
be OK.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews are needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967
)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226
).

This document does not request the IANA to perform any action.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No formal language is used in this document.
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo State Change Notice email list changed to tram-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems@tools.ietf.org
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo Changed document writeup
2014-07-05
02 Gonzalo Camarillo Document shepherd changed to Gonzalo Camarillo
2014-07-03
02 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-02.txt
2014-05-01
01 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-01.txt
2014-03-24
00 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-tram-auth-problems-00.txt