Camellia Cipher Suites for TLS
draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-05

[Ballot comment]
Some editorial nits:

Section 1: I would suggest not mentioning object identifiers here,
since they're not relevant for TLS.

Section 3.3.2 has lot of repetition and needs some rewriting.

There are several (informative) references that are not cited in the
text (and probably should not be cited either), and should be removed
from Section 6.2: [Camellia web site], [FIPS.197.2001],
[open source license]

[Ballot discuss]
Process-nit for Tim: there's a normative downref (to RFC 3713) that
was not called out in IETF Last Call, and is not listed in the downref
registry.

We did accept this downref for RFC 5529 (although it was not called
out in IETF Last Call), and it was earlier accepted for RFC 4312 (when
it was called out in IETF Last Call) and RFC 4132 (not mentioned in
IETF Last Call). So I would not object to adding it to the downref
registry.

[Ballot comment]
3.3.2.  Hash and Pseudorandom Function for TLS 1.2

Some text is repeated twice. In particular the first 2 paragraphs are repeated in the 3rd.

IANA comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "TLS Cipher Suite Registry" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml

OLD:

Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0x00,0x41 TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x42 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x43 TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x44 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x45 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x46 TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
...
0x00,0x84 TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x85 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x86 TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x87 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x88 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]
0x00,0x89 TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC4132]

NEW:

Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0x00,0x41 TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x42 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x43 TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x44 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x45 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x46 TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
...
0x00,0x84 TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x85 TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x86 TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x87 TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x88 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
0x00,0x89 TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "TLS Cipher Suite Registry" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml

Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
TBD TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]

TBD TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]
TBD TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 [RFC-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-04]


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

For :draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis
--------------

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

Satoru KANNO. Yes.

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

The document was submitted TLS-WG ML.
Pasi review and commented our draft, other members did not have strong
objection.

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

No concerns.

(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?

This document already had security experts review.  No
concerns for other area.

(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.

No concerns.

      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.

Yes.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/41/
covers this draft.

(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?

This is individual submition.

(1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent.

(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.

Yes, I have personally verified both the checklist and the idnits
tool output.

      Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to,
      such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?

No concerns.

      If the document does not already indicate its intended status
      at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended
      status here.

The intended status, Proposed Standard, is stated on the first page.

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative?  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
      strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
      so, list these downward references to support the Area
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split into normative and informative. Normative  all
normative references look acceptable.

(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
      Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
      of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
      registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  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 the Document
      Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
      the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

Yes. Everything looks OK here.

(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?

No concerns.

(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

  This document describes the use of the Camellia block cipher
  algorithm in Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode with SHA-2 familiy,
  as a TLSv1.2 Cipher suites.


Working Group Summary

  This is individual submition.

Document Quality

  Pasi Eronen and Alfred Hoenes have done a through review of
  this document for both technical and editorial content.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd for this document is Satoru KANNO, and
  the Responsible Area Director is Tim Polk.