[Dime] Publication request for Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol; draft-ietf-dime.erp-12
jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 23:18 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBDA21F88D9; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DMzFiknIf3Tc; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FAE21F8844; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so7228199yen.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=z5AjhbrzHlWJaB+yq6Xpr6tMFEx++1SROFgzOadqWHs=; b=jU8vCpmbpw4vmthjn87ro2SRXfiy48/uIYSkY0DXScwiju9VRh1q75qGmAt2Ppikw9 jy0DFQsuOoCxRK9HjJs7uS8nVXbCe9CypZGen8zucjs/pKXdPpCgvos6r7P97ljbPG98 76ErYQ+uXvsWAyWebXVWVb3wkIccBwYBbWOQYrJJvHs6rtJweR+ps18CE0BT2TscLX/q 0XeAo3tGqCJxRezOxEdc+milkd+8s0GnPGdJLvhDLuLw6dm2u5fIrZ81Z6uFqH3k+Glm wwXE1okwXUtaxU6IpOypVD+MzDm+OqSvb1Pba8l4FKttykV5w4rkeaXmmHgN8SMj0inP iERA==
Received: by 10.66.83.129 with SMTP id q1mr35749668pay.4.1343776720494; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c? ([2001:df8:0:16:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rs4sm1194242pbc.0.2012.07.31.16.18.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:36 +0300
Message-Id: <331264D7-04F2-44DD-B025-054E10A9EE11@gmail.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Publication request for Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol; draft-ietf-dime.erp-12
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:18:42 -0000
Dear Secretary, This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-dime-erp-12 as a standards track RFC. - Jouni ------------------------------------------------------- (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) is to be published as a Standards Track RFC, which is indicated in the I-D's cover page Intended Status field. Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol complements the Hokey WG's EAP Re-authentication work and provides the needed AAA backend support for both ER servers and EAP servers. (2) 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 The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) defines extensions to the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to support efficient re- authentication between the peer and an EAP Re-authentication (ER) server through a compatible authenticator. This document specifies Diameter support for ERP. It defines a new Diameter ERP application to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the ER server, and a set of new AVPs that can be used to transport the cryptographic material needed by the re-authentication server. Working Group Summary The I-D has been discussed extensively in the DIME WG and has reached the overall working group consensus. The work has been done in a cooperation with the Hokey WG that defined the EAP Re-authentication Protocol solution. Document Quality There are no publicly announced implementations of the protocol. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed the document after it has concluded the WGLC. The document shepherd thinks the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document has yet to be reviewed by the AAA and security directorate. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. The document shepherd has no specific concerns regarding the I-D itself. The document shepherd expects that the long lasting topic on sensitive information transport, such as key material, over Diameter gets discussed again. However, this is a known feature of Diameter and its hop-by-hop security properties. The existing security considerations should cover this when it references to e.g. I-D.ietf-dime-local-keytran. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. No IPRs have been declared. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPRs have been declared. (9) 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? The WG consensus is solid and does not represent only the opinion of few individuals. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document passes IDnits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document does not define MIBs, media types, URIs etc. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document only requests for code points and values from an existing IANA registry. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Checked with IDnits and against ietf-dime-rfc3588bis CCF (a modified ABNF).
- [Dime] Publication request for Diameter Support f… jouni korhonen