Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
draft-nsri-tls-aria-01

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Additional Last Call:  (Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Informational RFC

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)'
  as an Informational RFC

Last calls were earlier issued on version -01 of this document and this
document was approved by the IESG on 2011-01-25.  Subsequently,
the authors noted that the draft should have included the following
two cipher suites:
    TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
    TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384

This Last Call requests comments on the addition of these two suites to
this draft.  The intent is to aid implementers by keeping all the aria
cipher suites in one document.

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 2011-03-08. 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.

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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nsri-tls-aria/

[Ballot comment]
This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the
  Transport Layer Security (TLS)

Please don't be so timid. "This document defines/specifies ..."

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single
IANA Action that must be completed.

In the TLS Cipher Suite Registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Parameters located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml

the following registrations will be added:

value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
value (TBD,TBD) TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384

Each of the new registrations will have a reference of [RFC-to-be].

IANA understands that this is the only IANA Action required upon
approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)'
  as an Informational RFC

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 2011-01-06. 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.

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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nsri-tls-aria/

Here's the proto write-up for draft-nsri-tls-aria.

(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?

The Shepherd for this document is Woo-Hwan Kim (One of this document
authors) and the Shepherd reviewed this document and believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

This document is not a product of a WG.

The AD believes that cipher suite documents are fairly straightforward.

(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?

There are no concerns.

(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.

There are no concerns.

No IPR disclosure has been submitted.

(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 document is not the product of a WG.  Reviews were solicited from
the TLS WG, but there was little (if any) traffic on the list about this
draft.

(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.)

There has been no threat of appeal.

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

The Shepherd has verified that the document satisfies all ID nits.

(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].

The document splits its references into normative and informative.
There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state.
There are no normative references that are downward references.

(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?

The Shepherd has verified that the document's IANA Considerations
section exists and is consistent with the body of the document.  The
document is registering a number of TLS cipher suites from the first
byte range 192-254.  This requires a specification and the expert
reviewer is Eric Rescorla.

(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?

There is no formal language.

(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.

This document specifies a set of cipher suites for the Transport
Security Layer (TLS) protocol to support the ARIA encryption algorithm
as a block cipher.

        Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

The draft was circulated to the TLS WG.  There was little (if any)
discussion on this particular draft.  The one point raised, on the list
and by the Responsible AD, was the relationship with ARIA and SEED,
which are both national algorithms of the Republic of Korea.  While SEED
is mainly used for for electronic commerce and financial service,
ARIA is for government use and public purpose.  In particular, ARIA will
be used in VoIP for government.

The meta issue surrounding TLS cipher suite drafts was whether the
drafts should progress on standards or informational track.  The
Security ADs polled the SAAG list (and presented this question to a SAAG
session) on this particular issue.  There was rough consensus that these
drafts should progress on the informational track.

The AD requested that this draft collect all of the modes for ARIA in
one place to aid implementers.  Also, the AD requested that SHA-1 be
dropped from the list of suites.

        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?

There are no existing implementations of the protocol but the
specifications will be used in VoIP for governmental use.  Thus many
vendors will implement this specification.  No reviewer gave special
mention.  There was not a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review
(yet).

        Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'

The document shepherd for this document is Woo-Hwan Kim
.
The responsible Area Director is Sean Turner .
The IANA Expert is Eric Rescorla .