As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
A Proposed Standard RFC is being requested. The document specifies normatively mitigation techniques for key-share attacks on the use of Datagram Transport Layer Security for the Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol (DTLS-SRTP). The title page indicates "Standards Track".
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document describes unknown key-share attacks on the use of
Datagram Transport Layer Security for the Secure Real-Time Transport
Protocol (DTLS-SRTP). Similar attacks are described on the use of
DTLS-SRTP with the identity bindings used in Web Real-Time
Communications (WebRTC) and SIP identity. These attacks are
difficult to mount, but they cause a victim to be mislead about the
identity of a communicating peer. Simple mitigation techniques are
defined for each.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
The document was reviewed and discussed by a small group of key MMUSIC and RTCWEB members. No implementations are known.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
The Document Shepherd is Bo Burman.
The Responsible AD is Adam Roach.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
The document shepherd read the submitted version of the document fully and found no problems.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There are no concerns. The described attacks and mitigations are rather intricate, but received careful review from a handful of experts in the field and the submitted text addresses all received comments.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
The authors have confirmed that they do not know of any IPR disclosures that would be required.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
A handful of interested people (except the authors) have commented on the draft in MMUSIC and all those comments are addressed in the submitted draft.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
There are no idnits, except for RFC 6234 being identified as a downref, which should be OK and RFC 6234 is already in the downref registry.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
This document has no normative references that are not ready for advancement:
* draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp; in RFC Ed queue MISSREF.
* draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch; in IESG Evaluation
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
Yes, RFC 6234 (already in DOWNREF registry).
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
The document updates RFC 8122, which is appropriately indicated.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The document shepherd reviewed the IANA section and its relation to and consistency with the document body, and found no issues. The suggested modifications of the existing IANA "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry are clearly described and consistent with current registry content.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.