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
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)




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.

本文件澄清并放宽了IANA多媒体互联网密钥(MIKEY)规则。本文件更新了RFCs 3830、4563、5410和6043;它淘汰了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.

本文件是互联网工程任务组(IETF)的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查,并已被互联网工程指导小组(IESG)批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息,请参见RFC 5741第2节。

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at


Copyright Notice


Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

版权所有(c)2011 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents ( 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.

本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件,因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本,并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。

1. Introduction
1. 介绍

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
2. IANA考虑

IANA updated the registries related to MIKEY as specified below. All other MIKEY IANA registries remain unchanged.

IANA更新了与MIKEY相关的登记册,如下所述。所有其他MIKEY IANA登记处保持不变。

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 数据类型([RFC3830],第6.1节)

o Next payload ([RFC3830], Section 6.1)

o 下一有效载荷([RFC3830],第6.1节)

o PRF func ([RFC3830], Section 6.1)

o PRF func([RFC3830],第6.1节)

o CS ID map type ([RFC3830], Section 6.1)

o CS ID地图类型([RFC3830],第6.1节)

o Encr alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.2)

o 附件alg([RFC3830],第6.2节)

o MAC alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.2)

o MAC alg([RFC3830],第6.2节)

o DH-Group ([RFC3830], Section 6.4)

o DH集团([RFC3830],第6.4节)

o S type ([RFC3830], Section 6.5)

o S型([RFC3830],第6.5节)

o TS type ([RFC3830], Section 6.6)

o TS类型([RFC3830],第6.6节)

o ID Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.7)

o ID类型([RFC3830],第6.7节)

o Cert Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.7)

o 证书类型([RFC3830],第6.7节)

o Hash func ([RFC3830], Section 6.8)

o 哈希函数([RFC3830],第6.8节)

o SRTP Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)

o SRTP类型([RFC3830],第6.10节)

o SRTP encr alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)

o SRTP encr alg([RFC3830],第6.10节)

o SRTP auth alg ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)

o SRTP认证alg([RFC3830],第6.10节)

o SRTP PRF ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)

o SRTP PRF([RFC3830],第6.10节)

o FEC order ([RFC3830], Section 6.10)

o FEC订单([RFC3830],第6.10节)

o Key Data Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.13)

o 关键数据类型([RFC3830],第6.13节)

o KV Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.13)

o KV类型([RFC3830],第6.13节)

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 保护类型([RFC3830],第6.10节)

o Error no ([RFC3830], Section 6.12)

o 错误编号([RFC3830],第6.12节)

o General Extension Type ([RFC3830], Section 6.15)

o 一般扩展类型([RFC3830],第6.15节)

o KEY ID Type ([RFC4563], Section 4)

o 密钥ID类型([RFC4563],第4节)

o OMA BCAST Data Subtype ([RFC5410], Section 3)

o OMA BCAST数据子类型([RFC5410],第3节)

The "Specification Required" requirement remains for the following namespaces:


o TS Role ([RFC6043], Section 6.4)

o TS角色([RFC6043],第6.4节)

o ID Role ([RFC6043], Section 6.6)

o ID角色([RFC6043],第6.6节)

o RAND Role ([RFC6043], Section 6.8)

o 兰德角色([RFC6043],第6.8节)

o Ticket Type ([RFC6043], Section 6.10)

o 票证类型([RFC6043],第6.10节)

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       |
             | 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
3. 安全考虑

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
4. 对RFC 3830的更改

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
5. RFC 4563的变更

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
6. RFC 4909和RFC 5410的变更

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.

第2节放宽了[RFC4909]中定义的要求。OMA BCAST数据子类型命名空间现在具有“所需规范”要求。请注意,[RFC5410]已淘汰[RFC4909],但实际上并未定义IANA规则本身。因此,从现在起,此RFC定义了OMA BCAST数据子类型命名空间的IANA要求。

7. Changes from RFC 6043
7. RFC 6043的变更

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. 工具书类
8.1. Normative References
8.1. 规范性引用文件

[RFC3830] Arkko, J., Carrara, E., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., and K. Norrman, "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", RFC 3830, August 2004.

[RFC3830]Arkko,J.,Carrara,E.,Lindholm,F.,Naslund,M.,和K.Norrman,“米奇:多媒体互联网键控”,RFC 3830,2004年8月。

[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.

[RFC4563]Carrara,E.,Lehtovirta,V.,和K.Norrman,“多媒体互联网键控(MIKEY)中通用扩展有效载荷的密钥ID信息类型”,RFC 4563,2006年6月。

[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

[RFC5226]Narten,T.和H.Alvestrand,“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”,BCP 26,RFC 5226,2008年5月。

[RFC5410] Jerichow, A. and L. Piron, "Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY) General Extension Payload for Open Mobile Alliance BCAST 1.0", RFC 5410, January 2009.

[RFC5410]Jerichow,A.和L.Piron,“开放移动联盟BCAST 1.0的多媒体互联网键控(MIKEY)通用扩展有效载荷”,RFC 5410,2009年1月。

[RFC6043] Mattsson, J. and T. Tian, "MIKEY-TICKET: Ticket-Based Modes of Key Distribution in Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY)", RFC 6043, March 2011.

[RFC6043]Mattsson,J.和T.Tian,“MIKEY-TICKET:多媒体互联网密钥分配(MIKEY)中基于票据的密钥分配模式”,RFC 60432011年3月。

8.2. Informative References
8.2. 资料性引用

[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.

[RFC4909]Dondeti,L.,Castleford,D.,和F.Hartung,“开放移动联盟BCAST LTKM/STKM传输的多媒体互联网键控(MIKEY)通用扩展有效载荷”,RFC 49092007年6月。

Authors' Addresses


Jari Arkko Ericsson Jorvas 02420 Finland



Ari Keranen Ericsson Jorvas 02420 Finland

Ari Keranen Ericsson Jorvas 02420芬兰


John Mattsson Ericsson Stockholm SE-164 80 Sweden

约翰·马特森·爱立信斯德哥尔摩SE-164 80瑞典