The ARIA Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-11

[Ballot comment]
Although this is not a discuss, I think updated text would be very helpful on the following two issues.

I agree with the SecDir reviewer that there should be more text around the short tag length in the security considerations section.  I don't see a response to that post though.

For SHA-1, a reference to RFC6194 for the security considerations for SHA-1message digest algorithms would be helpful. 
Thank you!

[Ballot comment]
This actually looks more like a document that we would rather typically publish by the ISE (as it is describing a method employed by one specific entity only). I do not object to it publication as informational and I do understand that this mostly due to the registration the in the MIKEY registry, however, i would like to note that IESG Approval would have been another option for this registration.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with most of Ben Laurie's SecDir comments, and Ben's questions on SHA-1, but will leave it to the Sec ADs to evaluate.

[Ballot comment]
I think it would be wise to add a paragraph to the security considerations to call out the dependency on SHA1. A mention of what would need to happen to migrate to newer hash functions could also be helpful.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the DTLS-SRTP Protection Profiles registry located on the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/

the following eight profiles are to be registered:

Value Profile Reference
-----------------------+------------------------------+-------------
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_ARIA_128_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80 [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_ARIA_128_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32 [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_ARIA_192_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80 [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_ARIA_192_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32 [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_ARIA_256_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80 [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_ARIA_256_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32 [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_AEAD_ARIA_128_GCM [ RFC-to-be ]
[ TBD-at-Registration ] SRTP_AEAD_ARIA_256_GCM [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the Encryption algorithm (Value 0) subregistry of the MIKEY Security Protocol Parameters registry on the timedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY) Payload Name Spaces registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads/

the following algorithms are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
SRTP encr alg: ARIA-CTR
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
SRTP encr alg: ARIA-GCM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> In section 6.2 of the current document the authors state that IANA is "to add the below three encryption algorithms to the "MIKEY Security Protocol Parameters SRTP Type 0 (Encryption algorithm)" -- however, only two are listed. Is there one missing from the document or is the text in section 6.2 incorrect?

Third, in the SRTP Pseudo Random Function (Value 5) subregistry also in the MIKEY Security Protocol Parameters registry on the timedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY) Payload Name Spaces registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads/

the following function is to be added:

Value: [ RFC-to-be ]
SRTP PRF: ARIA-CTR
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these three actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, roni.even@mail01.huawei.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The ARIA Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol(SRTP)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'The ARIA
Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-time Transport
  Protocol(SRTP)'
  as Informational RFC

A previous version of this draft was last-called as a proposed standard.
Due to last call an IESG feedback, the working group made the following
changes:
  -- Changed status to informational
  -- Removed the registrations for SDP security descriptions.
  -- Removed the short authentication tag (GCM_8) modes
  -- Some tweaks on key lifetimes

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 2017-06-29. 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 defines the use of the ARIA block cipher algorithm
  within the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP).  It details
  two modes of operation (CTR, GCM) and a SRTP Key Derivation Function
  for ARIA.  Additionally, this document defines DTLS-SRTP protection
  profiles and MIKEY parameter sets for the use with ARIA.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.


Write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-09

(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


(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 defines the use of the ARIA block cipher algorithm
  within the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP).  It details
  two modes of operation (CTR, GCM) and a SRTP Key Derivation Function
  for ARIA.  Additionally, this document defines DTLS-SRTP protection
  profiles and MIKEY parameter sets for the use with ARIA.


Working Group Summary

  The primarily thing to note has been the limited interest
  in this work.

Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by a small group of
  persons beyond the authors themselves. Where only
  one have any significant security expertise (Dan Wing).
  From an RTP perspective the review situation is better
  where Colin Perkins, Jonathan Lennox and Shepherd
  has reviewed it.
 
  There exist a number of implementations of the ARIA cipher in SRTP. These
  are even certified by Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/index.jsp?team_cd=N&pageNum=2
  And looking at specific products like:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=987
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=971
  One can see (using Google translate) that they are listed as supporting ARIA.
  Shepherd notes that this likely means that the cipher and one form of
  key-management has been implemented.

Personnel

  Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and Ben Campbell is
  the Responsible Area Director.

(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 has previously reviewed the document prior to
WG last call. For the writeup the shepherd has re-reviewed the document
while checking each point on the checklist manually that aren't caught
by ID-nits. ID-nits and IPR disclosure checked. Questions to the authors.



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

This document objective is to describe how to use ARIA is SRTP and MIKEY.
No independent verification has been reported on the test vectors.


(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 need for any review. The document was reviewed by EKR as part of the security review; his comments were about the document being standard track, it is now Informational.


(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.

This is clearly a document with narrow interest. At the same time I
don't see how IETF can refuse to do national adaptations. But method
of working and also registry constraints may need to be considered
to simplify other national registrations in the future.

(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, the shepherd have received confirmation from all authors.


(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? 

It represent a consensus among few individuals.
There was a concern about the document being standard track and since the registration procedure  can be met using Informational document, this change was made after the IESG LC


(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.

None, ID-nits reports some potential warnings that has been verified
to be false. With the exception of the normative reference to a non
IETF document.


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

No formal review required.


(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?

Yes, to a WG draft (draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm) that is now RFC7714, the change can be done by the RFC editor


(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).

Significant parts of the document discusses various crypto suites that
are being registered. Thus checking that consistency is reasonably straight
forward. The IANA section part that is a bit tricky is MIKEY's. As it has
its own system for dealing with the SRTP crypto transform configuration. The
shepherd believes he does understand this well enough to be able to verify
registration in the right registries.

(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.

No new registries created.

(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 present.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.


Write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-09

(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


(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 defines the use of the ARIA block cipher algorithm
  within the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP).  It details
  two modes of operation (CTR, GCM) and a SRTP Key Derivation Function
  for ARIA.  Additionally, this document defines DTLS-SRTP protection
  profiles and MIKEY parameter sets for the use with ARIA.


Working Group Summary

  The primarily thing to note has been the limited interest
  in this work.

Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by a small group of
  persons beyond the authors themselves. Where only
  one have any significant security expertise (Dan Wing).
  From an RTP perspective the review situation is better
  where Colin Perkins, Jonathan Lennox and Shepherd
  has reviewed it.
 
  There exist a number of implementations of the ARIA cipher in SRTP. These
  are even certified by Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/index.jsp?team_cd=N&pageNum=2
  And looking at specific products like:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=987
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=971
  One can see (using Google translate) that they are listed as supporting ARIA.
  Shepherd notes that this likely means that the cipher and one form of
  key-management has been implemented.

Personnel

  Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and Ben Campbell is
  the Responsible Area Director.

(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 has previously reviewed the document prior to
WG last call. For the writeup the shepherd has re-reviewed the document
while checking each point on the checklist manually that aren't caught
by ID-nits. ID-nits and IPR disclosure checked. Questions to the authors.



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

This document objective is to describe how to use ARIA is SRTP and MIKEY.
No independent verification has been reported on the test vectors.


(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.

Security, someone knowing  AES-GCM block ciphers should take a look
on this.  The document was reviewed by EKR whose comments were about the document being standard track, it is now Informational.


(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.

This is clearly a document with narrow interest. At the same time I
don't see how IETF can refuse to do national adaptations. But method
of working and also registry constraints may need to be considered
to simplify other national registrations in the future.

(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, the shepherd have received confirmation from all authors.


(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? 

It represent a consensus among few individuals.
There was a concern about the document being standard track and since the registration procedure  can be met using Informational document, this change was made after the IESG LC


(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.

None, ID-nits reports some potential warnings that has been verified
to be false. With the exception of the normative reference to a non
IETF document.


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

No formal review required.


(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?

Yes, to a WG draft (draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm) that is now RFC7714, the change can be done by the RFC editor


(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).

Significant parts of the document discusses various crypto suites that
are being registered. Thus checking that consistency is reasonably straight
forward. The IANA section part that is a bit tricky is MIKEY's. As it has
its own system for dealing with the SRTP crypto transform configuration. The
shepherd believes he does understand this well enough to be able to verify
registration in the right registries.

(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.

No new registries created.

(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 present.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.


Write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-09

(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


(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 defines the use of the ARIA block cipher algorithm
  within the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP).  It details
  two modes of operation (CTR, GCM) and a SRTP Key Derivation Function
  for ARIA.  Additionally, this document defines DTLS-SRTP protection
  profiles and MIKEY parameter sets for the use with ARIA.


Working Group Summary

  The primarily thing to note has been the limited interest
  in this work.

Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by a small group of
  persons beyond the authors themselves. Where only
  one have any significant security expertise (Dan Wing).
  From an RTP perspective the review situation is better
  where Colin Perkins, Jonathan Lennox and Shepherd
  has reviewed it.
 
  There exist a number of implementations of the ARIA cipher in SRTP. These
  are even certified by Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/index.jsp?team_cd=N&pageNum=2
  And looking at specific products like:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=987
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=971
  One can see (using Google translate) that they are listed as supporting ARIA.
  Shepherd notes that this likely means that the cipher and one form of
  key-management has been implemented.

Personnel

  Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and Ben Campbell is
  the Responsible Area Director.

(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 has previously reviewed the document prior to
WG last call. For the writeup the shepherd has re-reviewed the document
while checking each point on the checklist manually that aren't caught
by ID-nits. ID-nits and IPR disclosure checked. Questions to the authors.



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

Yes, a significant concern regarding security aspects of this document.
The RTP aspects are sufficiently reviewed. Also, no independent verification
has been reported on the test vectors.


(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.

Security, someone knowing  AES-GCM block ciphers should take a look
on this.


(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.

This is clearly a document with narrow interest. At the same time I
don't see how IETF can refuse to do national adaptations. But method
of working and also registry constraints may need to be considered
to simplify other national registrations in the future.

(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, the shepherd have received confirmation from all authors.


(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? 

It represent a consensus among few individuals.
There was a concern about the document being standard track and since the registration procedure  can be met using Informational document, this change was made after the IESG LC


(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.

None, ID-nits reports some potential warnings that has been verified
to be false. With the exception of the normative reference to a non
IETF document.


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

No formal review required.


(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?

Yes, to a WG draft (draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm) that is now RFC7714, the change can be done by the RFC editor


(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).

Significant parts of the document discusses various crypto suites that
are being registered. Thus checking that consistency is reasonably straight
forward. The IANA section part that is a bit tricky is MIKEY's. As it has
its own system for dealing with the SRTP crypto transform configuration. The
shepherd believes he does understand this well enough to be able to verify
registration in the right registries.

(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.

No new registries created.

(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 present.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

Write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-09

(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


(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 defines the use of the ARIA block cipher algorithm
  within the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP).  It details
  two modes of operation (CTR, GCM) and a SRTP Key Derivation Function
  for ARIA.  Additionally, this document defines DTLS-SRTP protection
  profiles and MIKEY parameter sets for the use with ARIA.


Working Group Summary

  The primarily thing to note has been the limited interest
  in this work.

Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by a small group of
  persons beyond the authors themselves. Where only
  one have any significant security expertise (Dan Wing).
  From an RTP perspective the review situation is better
  where Colin Perkins, Jonathan Lennox and Shepherd
  has reviewed it.
 
  There exist a number of implementations of the ARIA cipher in SRTP. These
  are even certified by Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/index.jsp?team_cd=N&pageNum=2
  And looking at specific products like:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=987
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=971
  One can see (using Google translate) that they are listed as supporting ARIA.
  Shepherd notes that this likely means that the cipher and one form of
  key-management has been implemented.

Personnel

  Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and Ben Campbell is
  the Responsible Area Director.

(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 has previously reviewed the document prior to
WG last call. For the writeup the shepherd has re-reviewed the document
while checking each point on the checklist manually that aren't caught
by ID-nits. ID-nits and IPR disclosure checked. Questions to the authors.



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

Yes, a significant concern regarding security aspects of this document.
The RTP aspects are sufficiently reviewed. Also, no independent verification
has been reported on the test vectors.


(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.

Security, someone knowing  AES-GCM block ciphers should take a look
on this.


(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.

This is clearly a document with narrow interest. At the same time I
don't see how IETF can refuse to do national adaptations. But method
of working and also registry constraints may need to be considered
to simplify other national registrations in the future.

(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, the shepherd have received confirmation from all authors.


(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? 

It represent a consensus among few individuals.
There was a concern about the document being standard track and since the registration procedure  can be met using Informational document, this change was made after the IESG LC


(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.

None, ID-nits reports some potential warnings that has been verified
to be false. With the exception of the normative reference to a non
IETF document.


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

No formal review required.


(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?

Yes, to a WG draft (draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm) that is now RFC7714, the change can be done by the RFC editor


(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).

Significant parts of the document discusses various crypto suites that
are being registered. Thus checking that consistency is reasonably straight
forward. The IANA section part that is a bit tricky is MIKEY's. As it has
its own system for dealing with the SRTP crypto transform configuration. The
shepherd believes he does understand this well enough to be able to verify
registration in the right registries.

(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.

No new registries created.

(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 present.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-06.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

NOTE: the IESG-designated expert for DTLS-SRTP Protection Profiles (http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection) has sent objections to the IESG mailing list and to avt@ietf.org. IANA cannot register DTLS-SRTP Protection Profiles without expert approval.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions that IANA must complete.

First, in the SRTP Crypto Suite Registrations registry under the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Security Descriptions heading at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/

The following Crypto Suite Names will be added to the registry, all with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ]:

ARIA_128_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80
ARIA_128_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32
ARIA_192_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80
ARIA_192_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32
ARIA_256_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80
ARIA_256_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32
AEAD_ARIA_128_GCM
AEAD_ARIA_256_GCM
AEAD_ARIA_128_GCM_8
AEAD_ARIA_256_GCM_8
AEAD_ARIA_128_GCM_12
AEAD_ARIA_256_GCM_12
AEAD_ARIA_128_CCM
AEAD_ARIA_256_CCM
AEAD_ARIA_128_CCM_8
AEAD_ARIA_256_CCM_8
AEAD_ARIA_128_CCM_12
AEAD_ARIA_256_CCM_12

IANA requests that the authors, or the RFC Editor, change the URL in section 5.1 of the document from:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/sdp-security-descriptions.xml#sdp-security-descriptions-3

to:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/

Second, in the DTLS-SRTP Protection Profiles registry under the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) heading at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/

The following new profiles will be added, pending expert approval:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: ARIA_128_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: ARIA_128_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: ARIA_192_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: ARIA_192_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: ARIA_256_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_80
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: ARIA_256_CTR_HMAC_SHA1_32
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_128_GCM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_256_GCM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_128_GCM_8
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_256_GCM_8
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_128_GCM_12
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_256_GCM_12
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_128_CCM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_256_CCM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_128_CCM_8
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_256_CCM_8
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_128_CCM_12
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Profile: AEAD_ARIA_256_CCM_12
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA requests that the authors, or the RFC Editor, change the URL in section 5.2 of the document from:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xml#srtp-protection-1

to:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/

Third, in the Encryption algorithm (Value 0) subregistry under the Multimedia Internet KEYing (Mikey) Payload Name Spaces heading at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads/

three new algorithms are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
SRTP encr alg: ARIA-CTR
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
SRTP encr alg: ARIA-CCM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
SRTP encr alg: ARIA-GCM
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA requests that the authors, or the RFC Editor, change the URL in section 5.3 of the document from:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads/mikey-payloads.xml#mikey-payloads-26

to:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads/

Fourth, in the MIKEY Security Protocol Parameters SRTP Type 5 (Pseudo Random Function) subregistry also located under the Multimedia Internet KEYing (Mikey) Payload Name Spaces heading at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads/

one new pseudo random function is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
SRTP PRF: ARIA-CTR
Reference: [ RFC=to-be ]

IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The ARIA Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol(SRTP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document:
- 'The ARIA Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-time Transport
  Protocol(SRTP)'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2014-09-11. 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 defines the use of the ARIA block cipher algorithm
  within the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) for providing
  confidentiality for the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) traffic
  and for the control traffic for RTP, the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP).
  It details three modes of operation (CTR, CCM, GCM) and a SRTP Key
  Derivation Function for ARIA.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

Write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-06

(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?

Proposed Standard


(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 defines the use of the ARIA block cipher algorithm
  within the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) for providing
  confidentiality for the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) traffic
  and for the control traffic for RTP, the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP).
  It details three modes of operation (CTR, CCM, GCM) and a SRTP Key
  Derivation Function for ARIA. ARIA is a Korean National standard
  cipher.


Working Group Summary

  The primarily thing to note has been the limited interest
  in this work.

Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by a small group of
  persons beyond the authors themselves. Where only
  one have any significant security expertise (Dan Wing).
  From an RTP perspective the review situation is better
  where Colin Perkins, Jonathan Lennox and Shepherd
  has reviewed it.
 
  There exist a number of implementations of the ARIA cipher in SRTP. These
  are even certified by Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/index.jsp?team_cd=N&pageNum=2
  And looking at specific products like:
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=987
  http://test.tta.or.kr/research/result/network.jsp?team_cd=N&num=971
  One can see (using Google translate) that they are listed as supporting ARIA.
  Shepherd notes that this likely means that the cipher and one form of
  key-management has been implemented.

Personnel

  Magnus Westerlund is the Document Shepherd and Richard Barnes
  the Responsible Area Director.

(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 has previously reviewed the document prior to
WG last call. For the writeup the shepherd has re-reviewed the document
while checking each point on the checklist manually that aren't caught
by ID-nits. ID-nits and IPR disclosure checked. Questions to the authors.



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

Yes, a significant concern regarding security aspects of this document.
The RTP aspects are sufficiently reviewed. Also, no independent verification
has been reported on the test vectors.


(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.

Security, someone knowing ARIA and AES-GCM block ciphers should take a look
on this.


(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.

This is clearly a document with narrow interest. At the same time I
don't see how IETF can refuse to do national adaptations. But method
of working and also registry constraints may need to be considered
to simplify other national registrations in the future.

(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, the shepherd have received confirmation from all authors.


(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? 

It represent a consensus among few individuals.


(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.

None, ID-nits reports some potential warnings that has been verified
to be false. With the exception of the normative reference to a non
IETF document.


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

No formal review required.


(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?

Yes, to a WG draft (draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm) that already
has been publication requested.


(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.

Yes, RFC5794. Not in downref registry.


(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).

Significant parts of the document discusses various crypto suites that
are being registered. Thus checking that consistency is reasonably straight
forward. The IANA section part that is a bit tricky is MIKEY's. As it has
its own system for dealing with the SRTP crypto transform configuration. The
shepherd believes he does understand this well enough to be able to verify
registration in the right registries.

(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.

No new registries created.

(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 present.

Two minor issues outstanding. Otherwise shepherd thinks this is ready for WG last call.
In WG last call a crypto knowledge reviewer will be needed to help verify correctness.