[Dime] Publication request for Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 30 March 2011 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B51128C0F5; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.248
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnqxMrmHYF1n; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C963A6A7B; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BD228B8007; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:40:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown []) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCEF8B8001; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:40:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:40:13 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CBEF33.D08041D3"
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:40:11 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F5777355F4@ftrdmel1>
Thread-Topic: Publication request for Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport
Thread-Index: Acvu5mQcGepS5GeSQMKNoT9Ozwe2Zg==
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2011 23:40:13.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[D07E9BC0:01CBEF33]
Cc: dime@ietf.org, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Publication request for Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:38:38 -0000

Dear Secretary,


This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-08 as
a standards track RFC.

Please find below the document shepherd proto write-up.


Best Regards.





 PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-08.txt






  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the

        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 

        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 

        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 



         Lionel Morand (lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com)

         is the Document Shepherd, Dime co-chair. He has done a review

         on the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to

         IESG for publication.


  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 

        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 

        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 

        have been performed?  



         The document has had an extensive review by the DIME WG and

         the lastest version is the result of the consensus reached

         after discussion. 


         The shepherd has reviewed the document himself and has no

         issue with it. Nor the shepherd has issues with the reviews

         done by others.


  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 

        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 

        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 

        AAA, internationalization or XML? 






  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 

        issues 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 

        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 

        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 

        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 

        this issue. 






  (1.e) 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?   



         There is Dime WG consensus behind the document.



  (1.f) 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 

        entered into the ID Tracker.) 





  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 

        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts

        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are

        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 

        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 

        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? 



         The shepherd has checked the document with the idnits tool and

         found no issues. The document does not need MIB doctor review.

         The document does not contain any media and URI types.


  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 

        informative? 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 

        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 

        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 

        so, list these downward references to support the Area 

        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 



         References are split accordingly. There is a normative

         to a draft (draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis) but this draft should

         published soon. There are no other references to documents with

         unclear status or are in progress.


  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 

        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 

        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 

        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 

        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 

        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 

        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 

        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 

        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 

        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 

        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 

        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 



         This document defines 6 new Diameter AVP codes and requests
IANA for

         code value assignment in an existing registry.


         This document defines also a new IANA registry for values

         to one of the newly defined AVP (Key-Type AVP). Allocation of

         values is decided after expert review and the sheperd discussed

         point with Dan Romascanu, AD of the OPS AREA.



  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 

        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 

        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 

        an automated checker? 



         Yes. Note that the ABNF used in this document follows the

         modified ABNF syntax defined in RFC3588.



  (1.k) 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: 


     Technical Summary 




         This document specifies a set of AVPs allowing the transport of

         multiple cryptographic keys in a single Diameter message. Such 

         capability is required by several AAA applications.



     Working Group Summary 



         The document was discussed for more than one year in the WG and

         the document captures the results of the collaborative WG work.


     Document Quality 



         The document is complete, straightforward, simple and