[Dime] Publication request for the Diameter IKEv2 PSK - draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-04.txt

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 30 March 2011 16:59 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 [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BBA3A6B89; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.645
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.603, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrvYqG1pSqS6; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6ED3A6A4D; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DB3D26C8003; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:01:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C418F6C0001; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:01:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:00:41 +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_01CBEEFC.0066CB3E"
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:58:56 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F5777355D3@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Publication request for the Diameter IKEv2 PSK - draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-04.txt
Thread-Index: Acvu+8GeAYqHmTgbQX6N69bLTQpxnA==
From: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2011 17:00:41.0973 (UTC) FILETIME=[009E3A50:01CBEEFC]
Cc: dime@ietf.org, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Publication request for the Diameter IKEv2 PSK - draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-04.txt
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 16:59:06 -0000

Dear Secretary,

 

This is a request for publication of
draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-04.txt as a standards track RFC.

Please find below the document shepherd proto write-up.

 

Best Regards.

 

Lionel

 

==================================================

 PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-04.txt

================================================== 

 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-04.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-04.txt%20> 

 

 

  (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

         within the WG. 

                     

         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? 

 

         --

         No.

 

 

  (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. 

 

         --

         No.

 

 

  (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.) 

 

         --

         No.

 

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

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

        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.

         There is only one issue: the reference to the IKEv2 protocol
needs to

         be updated (from RFC 4306 to RFC 5996).

        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 reference to a draft
(draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran) 

         but a request for publication has been already sent for this
draft.

         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 a new Diameter application and 3 new AVP
codes. 

         IANA is requested to allocate values for the application id and
the AVP codes.

        IANA is also requested to assign a new value for the Key-Type
AVP from the 

        registry defined by the draft draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-08.
This registry 

        will have to be created first.

 

        No new registry is defined..

 

 

  (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 therefore extends
      the functionality offered by the Diameter Mobile IPv6 application
[RFC 5778] with pre-shared key based
      authentication offered by IKEv2 when no EAP is used.
 

         

         

     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
well-written.