As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
(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:
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.
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:
And looking at specific products like:
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.
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 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
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
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
(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.)
(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
None, ID-nits reports some potential warnings that has been verified
to be false. With the exception of the normative reference to a non
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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.