Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-rfc5296bis-06
Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 01:03 UTC
Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CCB11E8075 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:03:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vd5rZbyV7WqL for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:03:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FCB11E8072 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:03:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ300E3IPL89S@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:03:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ300AMCPL7CS@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:03:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGY78668; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:02:59 +0800
Received: from SZXEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) by szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:02:17 +0800
Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.225]) by szxeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.93]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:02:39 +0800
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:02:38 +0000
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4F326160.5040705@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.156]
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-id: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C29C64A@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-rfc5296bis-06
Thread-index: AQHM5lfWEt3oFeKmx0mMi6noRczRK5YzwAVw
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1FA5E0@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com> <4ECE4447.6040500@cs.tcd.ie> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1FB925@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com> <4ECE68BF.8080708@cs.tcd.ie> <4F326160.5040705@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "hokey@ietf.org" <hokey@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-rfc5296bis-06
X-BeenThere: hokey@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <hokey.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hokey>
List-Post: <mailto:hokey@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:03:22 -0000
Tina > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:50 AM > To: Tina TSOU > Cc: hokey@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-rfc5296bis-06 > > > Hi Tina, > > I guess its time for me to do the AD review > of this and then on to IETF LC. Any there any > substantive changes to be made before I do my > review? I think there are no substantive changes to be made for now. > > There are a few references that need updating > but that can be done after AD review. > > Thanks, > S. > > On 11/24/2011 03:54 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > > Hiya, > > > > On 11/24/2011 03:46 PM, Tina TSOU wrote: > >> Stephen, > >> Agreed with this ordering. > > > > Great. > > > >> Happy Thanksgiving! > > > > Not really a holiday here, but thanks, > > S > > > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Tina TSOU > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie] > >> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:19 AM > >> To: Tina TSOU > >> Cc: hokey@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-rfc5296bis-06 > >> > >> > >> Thanks Tina, > >> > >> I guess I'll queue this one up until we get the IETF LC started > >> on aak, but if you'd prefer some other ordering let me know, > >> > >> Thanks, > >> S. > >> > >> PS: Congratulations on getting your final WG document to this > >> stage! > >> > >> On 11/24/2011 04:51 AM, Tina TSOU wrote: > >>> Hi Stephen, > >>> Here is the PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-rfc5296bis-06. > >>> > >>> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? > >>> > >>> Tina Tsou<Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> > >>> > >>> 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? > >>> > >>> Yes and yes. > >>> > >>> (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? > >>> > >>> Yes and no; as the filename indicates this is just a revision > >>> of RFC 5296, mostly clearing the existing errata, cleaning up > >>> the language a bit, etc. No major technical changes were made. > >>> > >>> (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? > >>> > >>> No. > >>> > >>> Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > >>> been filed? > >>> > >>> 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? > >>> > >>> Consensus is as strong as for any hokey document. > >>> > >>> (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > >>> discontent? > >>> > >>> No. > >>> > >>> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > >>> document satisfies all ID nits? > >>> > >>> Yes; idnits generates several spurious warnings caused by > >>> interpreting elements of a figure as references and one > >>> down-reference error (see below). > >>> > >>> Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, > >>> such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > >>> informative? > >>> > >>> No. > >>> > >>> Are there normative references to documents that > >>> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > >>> state? > >>> > >>> No. > >>> > >>> Are there normative references > >>> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>> If so, list these downward references to support the Area > >>> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. > >>> > >>> Split as required. No down-references. > >>> > >>> > >>> (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? > >>> > >>> The IANA considerations section exists; the registry is identified and > >>> there are no other new registries. > >>> > >>> (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? > >>> > >>> Not applicable. > >>> > >>> (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 > >>> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > >>> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > >>> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > >>> or introduction. > >>> > >>> The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) is a generic framework > >>> supporting multiple types of authentication methods. In systems > >>> where EAP is used for authentication, it is desirable to avoid > >>> repeating the entire EAP exchange with another authenticator. This > >>> document specifies extensions to EAP and the EAP keying hierarchy to > >>> support an EAP method-independent protocol for efficient re- > >>> authentication between the peer and an EAP re-authentication server > >>> through any authenticator. The re-authentication server may be in > >>> the home network or in the local network to which the peer is > >>> connecting. > >>> > >>> This memo obsoletes RFC 5296. > >>> > >>> Working Group Summary > >>> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > >>> example, was there controversy about particular points or > >>> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > >>> rough? > >>> > >>> The document is a product of the Hokey working group. The document has > >>> working group consensus. > >>> > >>> > >>> Document Quality > >>> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > >>> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > >>> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > >>> merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > >>> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > >>> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > >>> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > >>> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > >>> review, on what date was the request posted? > >>> > >>> The document simplifies the usage scenarios identified and optimizes > >>> the procedure, protocol for the specific usage scenario. This > >>> document has gotten sufficient review from people with both OPS and > >>> Security background. The quality of the document is good. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Tina TSOU > >>> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > HOKEY mailing list > > HOKEY@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey > >
- [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-rfc52… Tina TSOU
- Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-r… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-r… Tina TSOU
- Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-r… Stephen Farrell
- [HOKEY] 答复: PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-r… zhou.sujing
- Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-r… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [HOKEY] PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-r… Tina TSOU