[HOKEY] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak
Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Tue, 01 November 2011 23:50 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 9127021F9D56 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.612, 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 TruiklS9BYYt for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECCF21F9D57 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
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 <0LU0006NDA81AD@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:50:25 +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 <0LU000IAUA775V@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:50:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AER46680; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:50:23 +0800
Received: from SZXEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.60) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:50:20 +0800
Received: from SZXEML526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.58]) by szxeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.60]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:50:16 +0800
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:50:15 +0000
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.114]
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-id: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1B261F@szxeml526-mbx.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: Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak
Thread-index: AcyY8PsL0Zjbli+RTOmEMA7EX3Mzxw==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: Adk0 AsWT BbKb H/fT Kbyq Lv53 L0mq MRLt PD+C Pppz RQs8 SRnu Wioo W330 X1Y3 ZK5S; 2; aABvAGsAZQB5AEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnADsAcwB0AGUAcABoAGUAbgAuAGYAYQByAHIAZQBsAGwAQABjAHMALgB0AGMAZAAuAGkAZQA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {4645E822-8B63-4DED-AE37-77EC422AF46F}; dABpAG4AYQAuAHQAcwBvAHUALgB6AG8AdQB0AGkAbgBnAEAAaAB1AGEAdwBlAGkALgBjAG8AbQA=; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:50:06 GMT; UAByAG8AdABvACAAdwByAGkAdABlAC0AdQBwACAAZgBvAHIAIABkAHIAYQBmAHQALQBpAGUAdABmAC0AaABvAGsAZQB5AC0AZQByAHAALQBhAGEAawA=
x-cr-puzzleid: {4645E822-8B63-4DED-AE37-77EC422AF46F}
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "hokey@ietf.org" <hokey@ietf.org>
Subject: [HOKEY] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak
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: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:50:39 -0000
Hi Stephen, Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak. (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? The document shepherd for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak is Tina Tsou <tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com>. I believe this document is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. 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, the review has been adequate. Both the OPS and security people active in the WG has reviewed it. (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 concerns. (1.d) Do 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 &n s issue. IPR disclosure to this document has been brought to the attention of the working group and is purely for defensive use. There are no other concerns. (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? It represents the concurrence of a few individuals with others being silent. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme &n bsp;&nbs ;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 tye review Datatracker finds no issues. Idnits is satisfied. (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]. 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 p; Technical Summary The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) is a generic framework supporting multiple types of authentication methods. The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) 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. Authenticated Anticipatory Keying (AAK) is a method by which cryptographic keying material may be established upon one or more candidate attachment points (CAPs) prior to handover. AAK uses the AAA infrastructure for key transport. This document specifies the extensions necessary to enable AAK support in ERP. Working Group Summary The document is a product of the Hokey working group. The document has working group consensus. Document Quality The document develops a series of procedure, protocol for the specific usage scenario identified. 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] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-a… Tina TSOU
- Re: [HOKEY] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-e… Stephen Farrell