Re: draft-dtls-sdp: Allow offerer to establish DTLS association before it has received the SDP answer?
Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <D549E2A8.1D08C%[email protected]> |
Hi, >>I have updated the PR. The text now allows the offerer to establish the >>DTLS >> association before it has received the SDP answer, but that any media >> received before the answer shall be considered unauthenticated. >> >> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/31 >> >> I intend to submit a new version of the draft soon, so please indicate >>if >> you don¹t agree with the text together with text that you (and >>hopefully >> others) would agree too :) > >Roman is right here, this is going too far. As ekr points out, we >over-corrected by insisting that the handshake not proceed without the >answer, but doesn't mean that we should let the handshake complete >without knowing to whom we are completing the handshake with. > >There is a case for taking the data you receive and holding it until >you get an answer; it would be OK to allow that, though it would need >some careful writing. > >However, I believe that the reason we've been asked to do this is in >aid of actually playing out media from a completely unauthenticated >source. That's the point at which this goes pear-shaped. The whole >point of this is to provide integrity, and that doesn't happen if an >attacker gets to provide the first few bits of a stream. > >I realize that this makes Cullen's use case harder, but several >alternative solutions have been offered. > >My preference is to forbid handshake completion until the anchors by >which the handshake is assessed (a=fingerprint, a=tls-id) are >available. If I understand correctly, you seem to suggest that we allow the handshake to ³proceed² (see 1st paragraph of your reply), but not to ³complete². If so, which endpoint is responsible to make sure that it doesn¹t ³complete²? >Second in preference to that is to allow received data to be saved, >but not used. In no circumstance should we allow data to be *sent*. I assume that also includes e.g., SCTP messages, i.e., in case of a WebRTC Data Channel it wouldn¹t be allowed to establish the SCTP association. Regards, Christer >It's very hard to guarantee that an error that is detected on the peer >will actually result in the connection terminating in a reasonable >period of time. The current draft is vague on this point. > >p.s., Tim's comment about media vs. data needs to be addressed.