AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM) Cipher Suites for TLS
draft-ietf-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters
sub-registry "TLS Cipher Suite Registry"

Value Description Reference
------------ -------------------------------------- ---------
{TBD,TBD} TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]
{TBD,TBD} TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 [RFC-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-03]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Eric Rescorla, Working Group Chair


Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from
key WG members and from key non-WG members?


Yes.

Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs
more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security,
operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No.


(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues
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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this
document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this
issue.


No, all this is fine.


(1.e) 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?

My sense is that this is the concurrence of most of the active
members of the WG with others mildly positive.


(1.f) 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 entered into the ID
Tracker.)

No.


(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type
and URI type reviews?

Yes.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

Yes.


Are there normative references to documents that are not
ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

No. There are external references NIST standards, however.


If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]?

No.

If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the
document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations
requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries
clearly identified?

Yes.


If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed
initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for
future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new
registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review
process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so
that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG
Evaluation?


N/A.



(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document
that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules,
MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker?

N/A.


(1.k) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found
in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may
be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process
that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about
particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing
implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors
indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the
document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media
Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the
case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
(end)


This document is the product of the Transport Layer Security Working
Group.

The IESG Contact Persons are Tim Polk and Pasi Eronon
A URL of this draft is:



Technical Summary

This document specifies new TLS cipher suites that use AES
in Galois Counter Mode for data encryption and message integrity.
These cipher suites use existing TLS authentication and key
establishment mechanisms.


Working Group Summary

This document is a product of the Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Working Group.


Document Quality

This document represents the summary of the TLS WG.


Personnel

The Document Shepherd for this document is Eric Rescorla,
and the responsible Area Director is Tim Polk.