Last Call Review of draft-ietf-payload-rfc4695-bis-
review-ietf-payload-rfc4695-bis-secdir-lc-harkins-2011-02-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-payload-rfc4695-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2011-02-23
Requested 2011-02-16
Authors John Wawrzynek, John Lazzaro
Draft last updated 2011-02-22
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Dan Harkins
Tsvdir Telechat review of -?? by David Black
Assignment Reviewer Dan Harkins
State Completed
Review review-ietf-payload-rfc4695-bis-secdir-lc-harkins-2011-02-22
Review completed: 2011-02-22

Review
review-ietf-payload-rfc4695-bis-secdir-lc-harkins-2011-02-22

  Hello,

  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 draft fixes several errors that were found in RFC 4695. I reviewed
the changes between RFC 4695 and this draft and found no issues that the
Security ADs should be made aware of. The Security Considerations do not
seem to have changed.

  The Security Considerations mention an issue in this draft (and RFC
4695) that can lessen RTP security. I am not suggesting a change to this
draft but if the RTP community is interested in addressing this issue I
believe it could be fixed by using AES-SIV (RFC 5297) instead of AES-CM
(the XOR'd components of the IV used by AES-CM should become distinct,
and unpadded, vector inputs to AES-SIV).

  regards,

  Dan.