Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-srtp-aes-gcm-01

David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mcgrew@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF0C21F8AAC for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yw4TrSZL1o3P for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF9221F884C for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mcgrew@cisco.com; l=3004; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1315922489; x=1317132089; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references; bh=OwrVwpaYhJCAjmMGvxUw8pkq6h3q70Kn1XUoLVfEWEI=; b=fyrlqVLcSUmi/EgvFxq6PGr/CJASawVzkMO5gIOaurchC45M7OF6yfMA fc29E6O4f77fFwx4hHfOG7qwutYirPHo9PmQ7+LJ9nncFmVpQtjS9qvi5 Ttn0d9gAguGtRu43ofdCzhZZjNY0MiEPcbkOldPfnvu4PpbVFMgrUuT8a w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAEdhb06tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABCp2h4gVMBAQEBAgESASUCPwULC0ZXBjWHVZkpAZ5Chg5gBIdti1CRQg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,374,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="21106163"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Sep 2011 14:01:29 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-254-212.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-254-212.cisco.com [10.32.254.212]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8DE1Ruv027531; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:01:28 GMT
Message-Id: <29641644-291E-4062-B57E-7824CFBDF5B0@cisco.com>
From: David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>
To: "Peck, Michael A" <mpeck@mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FD125153A070D45BC87645D3B88028802BB7BC639@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:01:26 -0700
References: <4FD125153A070D45BC87645D3B88028802BB7BC639@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-srtp-aes-gcm-01
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:30 -0000

Thanks for the comments, Michael.  More inline:

On Sep 12, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Peck, Michael A wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I support the publication of draft-ietf-avt-srtp-aes-gcm.
>
> I have a few minor comments on the document:
>
> Section 1.1 Crypto Context
> For clarity, suggest changing the text:
> which results in authentication of each participant in the SRTP  
> session and in their possession of a shared secret master key and a  
> shared master salt
> to:
> which results in authentication of each participant in the SRTP  
> session and possession by each participant of a shared secret master  
> key and a shared master salt
>
> s/maser key/master key
> 	
> Section 1.2.3:
> s/inititialition/initialization
>
> s/6-byte/6-octet
> (for consistency with the rest of the paragraph)
>
> Section 1.2.4:
> "12-octet SRTP session encryption salt" - should it say SRTCP  
> instead of SRTP here?
>

Good catch.

> Section 1.2.5:
> s/plaintext, which/plaintext and which
>
> Section 1.2.6:
> Missing a . at the end of the paragraph.
>
> Section 1.2.6.1:
> RFC 3711 section 3.4 states that the authentication tag is a  
> REQUIRED field in SRTCP.
> But draft-ietf-avt-srtp-aes-gcm-01 states in Figures 4 & 5 that the  
> authentication tag is NOT RECOMMENDED for SRTCP (because GCM already  
> places the authentication tag elsewhere).
> It may be appropriate to add some explanatory text about why the RFC  
> 3711 section 3.4 requirement for an authentication tag does not  
> apply here.
>
> "and eight octets and the encryption flag are treated as plaintext"  
> - I don't understand this wording - I don't know which eight octets  
> it is referring to, and the encryption flag is treated as AAD, not  
> plaintext.
> Perhaps just remove this whole sentence and rely on the diagram  
> instead - changing the paragraph text to just:
> "Figure 4 below shows how fields of an SRTCP packet are to be  
> treated when the encryption flag is set to 1."

Looks like a cut/paste error.  The "first 8 octets" was supposed to  
refer to the eight octets of the SRTCP header; it was supposed to have  
read "When the encryption flag is set to 1, the first 8-octets, the  
encryption flag, and the SRTCP index are treated as AAD.  All data  
between the SRTCP header and the encryption flag are treated as  
plaintext."

>
> Section 2.2:
> s/AEAD-AES-128-GCM-8/AEAD_AES_128_GCM_8
> s/AEAD-AES-256-GCM-8/AEAD_AES_256_GCM_8
>
> Section 4:
> Should the DTLS-SRTP SRTP Protection Profiles defined here follow  
> the example of RFC 5764 Section 4.1.2 and also include parameters?  
> (cipher, cipher_key_length, cipher_salt_length, maximum lifetime,  
> auth function, auth_key_length, auth_tag_length)
> We have a table in Section 7 of draft-peck-suiteb-dtls-srtp that may  
> be a good fit here.

That sounds like a good idea, thanks for the pointer.

David

>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> --
> Michael Peck
> The MITRE Corporation