IANA Rules for MIKEY (Multimedia Internet KEYing)
Loosens the sign-up rules for the MIKEY key-management protocol's IANA registries, so new values need less ceremony.
Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and J. Mattsson, "IANA Rules for MIKEY (Multimedia Internet KEYing)", RFC 6309, DOI 10.17487/RFC6309, August 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6309>.
@misc{rfc6309,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 6309,
howpublished = {RFC 6309},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC6309},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6309},
author = {J. Arkko and A. Keranen and J. Mattsson},
title = {{IANA Rules for MIKEY (Multimedia Internet KEYing)}},
pagetotal = 6,
year = 2011,
month = aug,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Arkko
Request for Comments: 6309 A. Keranen
Obsoletes: 4909 J. Mattsson
Updates: 3830, 4563, 5410, 6043 Ericsson
Category: Standards Track August 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
IANA Rules for MIKEY (Multimedia Internet KEYing)
Abstract
This document clarifies and relaxes the IANA rules for Multimedia
Internet KEYing (MIKEY). This document updates RFCs 3830, 4563,
5410, and 6043; it obsoletes RFC 4909.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6309.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
This document relaxes the IANA rules for Multimedia Internet KEYing
(MIKEY) [RFC3830]. The IANA rules defined in [RFC3830], [RFC4563],
[RFC4909], and [RFC5410] are affected. In addition, the rules
specified in [RFC6043] are re-specified here.
Most of the values in MIKEY namespaces are divided into two ranges:
"IETF Review" (or "IETF Consensus" as it was previously called) and
"Reserved for Private Use" [RFC5226]. This document changes, for
majority of the namespaces, the requirement of "IETF Review" to "IETF
Review or IESG Approval" [RFC5226]. For some namespaces, the
requirement is changed to "Specification Required" [RFC5226].
The rationale for this update is that there can be situations where
it makes sense to grant an allocation under special circumstances or
that time has shown that the current requirement is unnecessarily
strict for some of the namespaces. By changing the current IANA
rules to also allow for "IESG Approval" [RFC5226], it becomes
possible for the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) to
consider an allocation request, even if it does not fulfill the
default rule. For instance, an experimental protocol extension could
perhaps deserve a new payload type as long as a sufficient number of
types still remains, and the MIKEY community is happy with such an
allocation. Moreover, for some registries, a stable specification
would be a sufficient requirement, and this is thus reflected in the
updated IANA rules. For instance, an RFC via the Independent Stream
at the RFC Editor is sufficient for some registries and does not
force an IETF evaluation of a particular new extension for which
there is no general demand. Nevertheless, "IETF Review" is still
encouraged (instead of using the "IESG Approval" path) if there is
doubt about whether or not it is needed for a new allocation.
The rest of this document is structured as follows. Section 2
defines the new IANA rules. Section 3 discusses the security
implications of this document. Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 explain the
changes to [RFC3830], [RFC4563], [RFC4909], [RFC5410], and [RFC6043].
2. IANA Considerations
IANA updated the registries related to MIKEY as specified below. All
other MIKEY IANA registries remain unchanged.
New values for the version field ([RFC3830], Section 6.1) and the C
envelope key cache indicator ([RFC3830], Section 6.3) field can be
allocated via "IETF Review".
The "IETF Review" requirement for adding new values into namespaces,
originally defined in [RFC3830], is to be changed to "IETF Review or
IESG Approval". This change affects the following namespaces:
o data type ([RFC3830], Section 6.1)
o Next payload ([RFC3830], Section 6.1)
o PRF func ([RFC3830], Section 6.1)
o CS ID map type ([RFC3830], Section 6.1)
o Encr alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.2)
o MAC alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.2)
o DH-Group ([RFC3830], Section 6.4)
o S type ([RFC3830], Section 6.5)
o TS type ([RFC3830], Section 6.6)
o ID Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.7)
o Cert Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.7)
o Hash func ([RFC3830], Section 6.8)
o SRTP Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)
o SRTP encr alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)
o SRTP auth alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)
o SRTP PRF ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)
o FEC order ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)
o Key Data Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.13)
o KV Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.13)
The "IETF Review" requirement for the following registries,
originally defined in [RFC3830], [RFC4563], [RFC4909], and [RFC5410],
is to be changed to "Specification Required".
o Prot type ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)
o Error no ([RFC3830], Section 6.12)
o General Extension Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.15)
o KEY ID Type ([RFC4563], Section 4)
o OMA BCAST Data Subtype ([RFC5410], Section 3)
The "Specification Required" requirement remains for the following
namespaces:
o TS Role ([RFC6043], Section 6.4)
o ID Role ([RFC6043], Section 6.6)
o RAND Role ([RFC6043], Section 6.8)
o Ticket Type ([RFC6043], Section 6.10)
The range of valid values for certain namespaces defined in the IANA
considerations of [RFC3830] was not explicitly defined and is
clarified here as follows:
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| Namespace | Valid values |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| C Envelope Key Cache Indicator | 0 - 3 |
| S type | 0 - 15 |
| Key Data Type | 0 - 15 |
| KV Type | 0 - 15 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
3. Security Considerations
This specification does not change the security properties of MIKEY.
However, when new values are introduced without IETF consensus, care
needs to be taken to assure that possible security concerns regarding
the new values are still addressed.
4. Changes from RFC 3830
Section 2 relaxes the requirements from those defined in [RFC3830].
A number of namespaces now have the "IETF Review or IESG Approval"
requirement, when they previously had the "IETF Review" requirement.
In addition, some namespaces now have the "Specification Required"
requirement.
5. Changes from RFC 4563
Section 2 relaxes the requirements from those defined in [RFC4563].
The KEY ID Type namespace now has the "Specification Required"
requirement.
6. Changes from RFC 4909 and RFC 5410
Section 2 relaxes the requirements from those defined in [RFC4909].
The OMA BCAST Data Subtype namespace now has the "Specification
Required" requirement. Note that [RFC5410] obsoleted [RFC4909] but
does not actually define the IANA rules itself. As a result, from
now on, this RFC defines the IANA requirements for the OMA BCAST Data
Subtype namespace.
7. Changes from RFC 6043
There are no changes to the rules specified in [RFC6043]. However,
for sake of completeness, Section 2 re-specifies these rules in this
document, and from now on, this RFC defines the IANA requirements for
those namespaces.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC3830] Arkko, J., Carrara, E., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., and K.
Norrman, "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", RFC 3830,
August 2004.
[RFC4563] Carrara, E., Lehtovirta, V., and K. Norrman, "The Key ID
Information Type for the General Extension Payload in
Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY)", RFC 4563, June 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5410] Jerichow, A. and L. Piron, "Multimedia Internet KEYing
(MIKEY) General Extension Payload for Open Mobile Alliance
BCAST 1.0", RFC 5410, January 2009.
[RFC6043] Mattsson, J. and T. Tian, "MIKEY-TICKET: Ticket-Based
Modes of Key Distribution in Multimedia Internet KEYing
(MIKEY)", RFC 6043, March 2011.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4909] Dondeti, L., Castleford, D., and F. Hartung, "Multimedia
Internet KEYing (MIKEY) General Extension Payload for Open
Mobile Alliance BCAST LTKM/STKM Transport", RFC 4909,
June 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Ari Keranen
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: ari.keranen@ericsson.com
John Mattsson
Ericsson
Stockholm SE-164 80
Sweden
EMail: john.mattsson@ericsson.com
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Why the Rules Were Relaxed
RFC 6309 relaxes the IANA rules for Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY), defined in RFC 3830. Most MIKEY namespaces are split into two ranges: "IETF Review" (earlier called "IETF Consensus") and "Reserved for Private Use".
The rationale is that sometimes it makes sense to grant an allocation under special circumstances, and that time has shown the old requirement to be unnecessarily strict for some namespaces. The RFC gives an example: an experimental protocol extension could deserve a new payload type, as long as enough types remain and the MIKEY community is happy with it.
The old rule was like needing the whole school to vote on every new club rule. Some changes are small, so a lighter process was added.
§2IETF Review or IESG Approval
For a long list of namespaces from RFC 3830, the requirement changes from "IETF Review" to "IETF Review or IESG Approval". This lets the IESG consider a request even when it does not meet the default rule. The RFC still encourages IETF Review when there is doubt about whether a new allocation is needed.
The affected namespaces include data type, Next payload, PRF func, CS ID map type, Encr alg, MAC alg, DH-Group, S type, TS type, ID Type, Cert Type, Hash func, SRTP Type, SRTP encr alg, SRTP auth alg, SRTP PRF, FEC order, Key Data Type and KV Type.
New values for the version field and the C envelope key cache indicator field stay with plain "IETF Review".
For many lists, the group of top reviewers can now say yes to a special case, even if the usual path was not followed.
§3Specification Required Registries
Some registries drop to "Specification Required": Prot type, Error no and General Extension Type from RFC 3830, KEY ID Type from RFC 4563, and OMA BCAST Data Subtype from RFC 5410. For these, a stable specification is enough.
The RFC notes that an RFC published through the Independent Stream at the RFC Editor is sufficient for some registries, and does not force an IETF evaluation of an extension for which there is no general demand.
Four namespaces from RFC 6043 already used "Specification Required" and keep it: TS Role, ID Role, RAND Role and Ticket Type. Their rules are re-specified here, and this RFC now defines their IANA requirements.
For some lists, you just need to write down clearly what your new item means. A stable written description is enough.
| Namespace | Source | New rule |
|---|---|---|
| Encr alg | RFC 3830 | IETF Review or IESG Approval |
| Error no | RFC 3830 | Specification Required |
| KEY ID Type | RFC 4563 | Specification Required |
| OMA BCAST Data Subtype | RFC 5410 | Specification Required |
| Ticket Type | RFC 6043 | Specification Required (unchanged) |
§4Clarified Value Ranges
The IANA considerations of RFC 3830 did not say which values were valid for some namespaces. This RFC states them.
The lists did not say how long they could be. Now the notes say exactly which numbers can be used.
§5What Changes in Earlier RFCs
Relative to RFC 3830, a number of namespaces now have the "IETF Review or IESG Approval" requirement and some have "Specification Required". The KEY ID Type namespace of RFC 4563 now has "Specification Required".
RFC 5410 obsoleted RFC 4909 but did not define the IANA rules itself. From now on, RFC 6309 defines the IANA requirements for the OMA BCAST Data Subtype namespace. For RFC 6043 there are no changes, only a restatement for completeness.
Older rulebooks are corrected in a few places. This one is now the place to look for the rules on some lists.
§6Security Considerations
The specification does not change the security properties of MIKEY. However, when new values are introduced without IETF consensus, care needs to be taken to make sure that possible security concerns about the new values are still addressed.
Making it easier to add things means someone still has to check that the new things are safe.