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

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:44:44 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

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.

(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.)

--Sandy

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:13:19 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandra Murphy [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 8:45 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-register-srtp-01
> 
> 
> There are no security concerns that I can see that would 
> result from this modification.

Thanks for your review.

> 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