The SEED Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with the Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
RFC 5669
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
14 | (System) | Notify list changed from avt-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Alexey Melnikov |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Harrington |
2010-08-31 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-08-31 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5669' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-08-30 |
14 | (System) | RFC published |
2010-07-07 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-07-07 |
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2010-07-06 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-07-06 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from RFC-Ed-Ack |
2010-07-06 |
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-07-06 |
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2010-07-06 |
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-07-02 |
14 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 |
2010-07-01 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-06-30 |
14 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Harrington has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Harrington |
2010-06-30 |
14 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant |
2010-06-30 |
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-06-30 |
14 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
2010-06-29 |
14 | David Harrington | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss-discuss. I was of the impression that national ciphers were handled as informational. Was I misstaken? |
2010-06-29 |
14 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by David Harrington |
2010-06-28 |
14 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
2010-06-21 |
14 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Robert Sparks |
2010-06-21 |
14 | Robert Sparks | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 by Robert Sparks |
2010-06-21 |
14 | Robert Sparks | Ballot has been issued by Robert Sparks |
2010-06-21 |
14 | Robert Sparks | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-06-21 |
14 | Robert Sparks | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Informational |
2010-06-21 |
14 | Robert Sparks | Note field has been cleared by Robert Sparks |
2010-06-21 |
14 | Robert Sparks | Responsible AD has been changed to Robert Sparks from Cullen Jennings |
2010-06-18 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-06-18 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | The IESG requested that this draft be be withdrawn from the RFC Editor queue for evaluation for publication at Proposed Standard instead of Informational on … The IESG requested that this draft be be withdrawn from the RFC Editor queue for evaluation for publication at Proposed Standard instead of Informational on 2010-06-17. |
2009-09-21 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-09-21 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-09-21 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-09-18 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-09-17 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2009-09-17 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-09-17 |
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-09-17 |
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-09-17 |
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-09-17 |
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2009-06-15 |
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-14.txt |
2009-06-12 |
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-06-12 |
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] In Section 5: OLD: An RTP implementation that supports SEED, it MUST implement the modes listed in Section 5. NEW: … [Ballot comment] In Section 5: OLD: An RTP implementation that supports SEED, it MUST implement the modes listed in Section 5. NEW: An RTP implementation that supports SEED MUST implement the modes listed in Section 5 of this document. |
2009-06-11 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2009-06-11 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2009-06-09 |
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-13.txt |
2009-06-09 |
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] While I understand what the section 5 is trying to say, I think it can be improved: In Section 5: OLD: "Mandatory-to-implement" … [Ballot comment] While I understand what the section 5 is trying to say, I think it can be improved: In Section 5: OLD: "Mandatory-to-implement" means conformance to the specification, and that Table 1 does not supersede [RFC3711]. An RTP implementation that supports SEED, it MUST implement the modes listed in Section 5. NEW: "Mandatory-to-implement" means conformance to the specification, and that Table 1 does not supersede a similar table in Section 5 of [RFC3711]. An RTP implementation that supports SEED MUST implement the modes listed in Section 5 of this document. |
2009-06-09 |
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] Updated as per version 12 of the document: The new IANA Considerations section is an improvement. However, as pointed out by Tim Polk, … [Ballot discuss] Updated as per version 12 of the document: The new IANA Considerations section is an improvement. However, as pointed out by Tim Polk, GCM variants are not registered. |
2009-06-09 |
14 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2009-06-08 |
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2009-06-08 |
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-12.txt |
2009-06-05 |
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Ran Canetti. |
2009-06-04 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-04 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This expands upon Pasi's discuss... Unlike section 2.2 (CCM), section 2.3 does not discuss the parameters for SEED-GCM. GCM requires specification of the … [Ballot discuss] This expands upon Pasi's discuss... Unlike section 2.2 (CCM), section 2.3 does not discuss the parameters for SEED-GCM. GCM requires specification of the authentication tag length, usually denoted t. Since 2.3 is silent, the assumption is that the 80 bit default specified in 2.1 for counter or 2.2 for SEED-CCM would apply. However, this violates the constraints specified in the GCM base spec. From SP 800 38D: The bit length of the tag, denoted t, is a security parameter, as discussed in Appendix B. In general, t may be any one of the following five values: 128, 120, 112, 104, or 96. For certain applications, t may be 64 or 32; guidance for the use of these two tag lengths, including requirements on the length of the input data and the lifetime of the key in these cases, is given in Appendix C. I would strongly suggest specifying 96 bits as the default for t (larger values do not appear to be needed; selection of a smaller value would be insecure imho). |
2009-06-04 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-06-04 |
14 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-06-04 |
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-06-04 |
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] IANA considerations have to be fixed, as other ADs have already noted. |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] I agree with the DISCUSS ballot position already provided by Alexey. In particular, Section 5 must be clarified. The SEED algorithm is … [Ballot comment] I agree with the DISCUSS ballot position already provided by Alexey. In particular, Section 5 must be clarified. The SEED algorithm is not mandatory-to-implement for all RTP implementations. However, an RTP implementation that supports SEED, it must implement the modes listed in Section 5. |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-11, and I have one concern that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: Section 2.3 does … [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-11, and I have one concern that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document: Section 2.3 does not actually say what the authentication tag length is for GCM mode, but the example in Appendix A.3 suggests it would be 80 bits. However, this length is not allowed by the GCM spec (800-38D). The easiest way to fix this would be to change this to 96 bits. |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-06-03 |
14 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-02 |
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-06-01 |
14 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] I would like to support Alexey's Discuss regarding IANA registration. It seems to me to be an unnecessary complexity to define the algorithm … [Ballot comment] I would like to support Alexey's Discuss regarding IANA registration. It seems to me to be an unnecessary complexity to define the algorithm in one place and not register the necessary identifiers with the key-management. Sure SRTP has several keying mechanisms. However, this question should be well thought through as there may be issues down the road in publishing this as informational status. From RFC 4568: 10.3.2.1. SRTP Crypto Suite Registry and Registration The IANA has created a new subregistry for SRTP crypto suites under the SRTP transport of the SDP Security Descriptions. An IANA SRTP crypto suite registration MUST indicate the crypto suite name in accordance with the grammar for srtp-crypto-suite-ext defined in Section 9.2. The semantics of the SRTP crypto suite MUST be described in an RFC in accordance with the RFC 2434 Standards Action, including the semantics of the "inline" key-method and any special semantics of parameters. This may be a qualified downref for a future standards track document to register the crypto suit identifiers. But it should be considered now. |
2009-06-01 |
14 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-05-24 |
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] 5. Default and mandatory-to-implement Transforms The default transforms also are mandatory-to-implement transforms in SRTP. Of course, "mandatory-to-implement" means conformance to the … [Ballot discuss] 5. Default and mandatory-to-implement Transforms The default transforms also are mandatory-to-implement transforms in SRTP. Of course, "mandatory-to-implement" means conformance to the specification. man.-to-impl. optional default encryption SEED-CTR SEED-CCM,SEED-GCM SEED-CTR message integrity HMAC-SHA1 SEED-CCM,SEED-GCM HMAC-SHA1 key derivation (PRF) SEED-CTR - SEED-CTR It is not clear if this section is supposed to replace Section 5 of RFC 3711, or whether it just extends it. Please clarify. Table 1: Mandatory-to-implement, optional and default transforms in SRTP and SRTCP. ========= I also need to discuss the following with the rest of IESG and/or authors before deciding whether I should clear this part of my DISCUSS or update it: >7. IANA Considerations > > This document has no actions for IANA. This looks wrong. I was trying to find in RFC 3711 where cipher/authentication mode identifiers are transported in SRTP and couldn't find anything apart from statements like: >4. Pre-Defined Cryptographic Transforms > > While there are numerous encryption and message authentication > algorithms that can be used in SRTP, below we define default > algorithms in order to avoid the complexity of specifying the > encodings for the signaling of algorithm and parameter identifiers. which made me wonder if the list of ciphers is hardcoded somewhere. Please help me find where cipher identifiers are described. |
2009-05-24 |
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-05-19 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings |
2009-05-19 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-04 by Cullen Jennings |
2009-05-19 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings |
2009-05-19 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings |
2009-05-19 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-05-19 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from Proposed Standard |
2009-04-23 |
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-11.txt |
2009-04-08 |
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-10.txt |
2009-03-27 |
14 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-03-23 |
14 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2009-03-06 |
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ran Canetti |
2009-03-06 |
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ran Canetti |
2009-03-02 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2009-03-02 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from AD Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-03-02 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Last Call Requested by Cullen Jennings |
2009-03-02 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Cullen Jennings |
2009-03-02 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | Last Call was requested by Cullen Jennings |
2009-03-02 |
14 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-03-02 |
14 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-03-02 |
14 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-03-02 |
14 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings |
2009-02-12 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Document Shepherd Write-Up (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed … Document Shepherd Write-Up (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 document shepherd is Roni Even. I have reviewed the document, and believe it is ready 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 describes the use of the SEED block cipher algorithm in 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 Real-). The document went through a long WGLC. Earlier version of the draft was reviewed and there were comments that were addressed. The latest revision was given sufficient time for review. The document shepherd has no concerns about the review process. (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? I suggest that the document will be reviewed by security experts. In the past it was reviewed by David McGrew and Eric Rescorla. The latest version had comments from Alfred Hײ¾nes all were addressed (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 concerns. There is no disclosed IPR on this document. (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? The document has good consensus from the WG. (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.) 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? The document has normative downward references, see 1.h No other 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]. References have been split. There are no normative references to internet-drafts, there are downward references to RFC3610 and RFC4269. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration 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 Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section exists. There are no IANA actions required. (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 such sections. (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 describes the use of the SEED [RFC4269] block cipher algorithm in the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] for providing confidentiality for the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] traffic and for the control traffic for RTP, the Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550]. 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? The document has been reviewed by the AVT working group to ensure consistency with SRTP. 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 implementations of SEED and this draft specifies how to use it for SRTP Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roni Even is the document shepherd. Cullen Jennings is the Responsible AD. |
2009-02-12 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-02-06 |
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-09.txt |
2009-01-05 |
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-08.txt |
2008-11-18 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-07.txt |
2008-09-30 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-06.txt |
2008-09-18 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-05.txt |
2008-09-04 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-04.txt |
2008-07-14 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-03.txt |
2008-05-02 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-02.txt |
2008-02-20 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-01.txt |
2007-10-25 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-seed-srtp-00.txt |