[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-register-srtp-01

Sandra Murphy <sandra.murphy@sparta.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A30A3A68AE; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tvsyufaYIWBo; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from M4.sparta.com (M4.sparta.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99ECD3A6ADA; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com []) by M4.sparta.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id o3KFillg003552; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:44:47 -0500
Received: from nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com (nemo.columbia.sparta.com []) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o3KFijCG009873; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:44:45 -0500
Received: from SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([]) by nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:44:45 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:44:44 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Sandra Murphy <sandra.murphy@sparta.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1004201135160.3436@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
X-X-Sender: sandy@nemo.columbia.sparta.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2010 15:44:45.0543 (UTC) FILETIME=[66AC2F70:01CAE0A0]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:05:20 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-avt-register-srtp@tools.ietf.org, avt-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-register-srtp-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:44:58 -0000

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area 
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 
just like any other last call comments.

This document resolves a conflict between IETF process and SRTP 
registration process, wrt country specific cryptographic transforms.  The 
IETF process requires that such transforms be published as informational 
rfcs, but the SRTP documentation requires a standards track RFC for 
extensions to SRTP.

This document modifies RFC3711 and RFC4568 to allow either informational 
RFCs or standards RFCs as the basis of registration in IANA's SRTP Cyrpto 
Suite Registrations.

There are no security concerns that I can see that would result from this 

(I have one idle question.  If the crypto suites are only required to be 
informational, does that mean that the interoperability requirement for 
standards progress would not apply to the crypto transforms?  I do not 
suggest that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.)