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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C002F3A6BB3; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.138
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.461, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3VvKxz2pohI; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A605F3A68F6; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhsHANaZzUurR7H+/2dsb2JhbACHWoEUkxlxolGaSIUPBIM0HQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,244,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="118102645"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2010 19:13:18 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 (dhcp-128-107-109-1.cisco.com [128.107.109.1]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3KJDIfS000522; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:13:18 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Sandra Murphy'" <sandra.murphy@sparta.com>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1004201135160.3436@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:13:19 -0700
Message-ID: <02f801cae0bd$897075d0$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcrgoHlsVNnbn8mpQMOjMblSdXcWgQAHOLeQ
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1004201135160.3436@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-avt-register-srtp@tools.ietf.org, avt-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 19:13:29 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandra Murphy [mailto:sandra.murphy@sparta.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 8:45 AM
> To: secdir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: avt-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-avt-register-srtp@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-register-srtp-01
> 
> 
> 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 modification.

Thanks for your review.

> (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.)

There are mandatory-to-implement standards track SRTP crypto 
suites [RFC3711], which would progress through the standards 
process.

It is true that the informational SRTP crypto suites would not
be progressed.

-d


> --Sandy
>