Subject: [AVTCORE] Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-00

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:17:02 -0500

I have reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-00.

I'm leaving aside the question of whether it's useful to define
another symmetric encryption algorithm for SRTP (my view is generally
no, especially since we have already specified SEED)
but the WG seems to have decided that.

With that said I don't really understand why you are defining three
key sizes and three counter modes. I would recommend defining only 128
and 256-bit GCM unless there is some actual reason not to.

Other than that, this seems like a reasonably plausible draft.

---

From: Woo-Hwan Kim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:45:07 +0900

Thanks for the review.

 Both SEED and ARIA were established as KS(Korean Standard) by the Ministry
of Knowledge Economy of Korea.
 But SEED and ARIA have different application areas each other.
 While SEED is mainly used for for electronic commerce and financial
service, ARIA is for government use and public purpose.
 As the governmental area is growing recently,
 we need to standardize SRTP-ARIA even though SRTP-SEED is already defined
in RFC 5669.

 As for the ciphersuites, we intended to provide the same funtionality as
SRTP-AES.
 While preparing TLS-ARIA(RFC 6209), we added all the ciphersuites which
are defined for TLS-AES in one document
 following the opinion of TLS ADs.
 So, we referred to RFC 6188 which defines CM-AES-192/256 and the
I.D.(draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm) on the GCM-AES-128/256 and
CCM-AES-128/256.

Thanks.

Woo-Hwan Kim

> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:17:02 -0500
> From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [AVTCORE] Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-00
> Message-ID:
> <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>