[KEYPROV] PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-07

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-07
==========================================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat-07
 
   (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 is Hannes Tschofenig ([e-mail]).
I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready 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 was reviewed by working group members. There are no concerns
regarding the depth or breadth of the review.

Most members of the KEYPROV working group, however, do not have a lot of
expertise with ASN.1.

Fortunately, this document was created inline with PSKC and represents
the ASN.1 based encoded version of PSKC.  

   (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?

There are no concerns with this document. The document contains ASN.1
code that has been verified by tools.
 
   (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.

There are no concerns with this document. No IPR disclosures have been
field.


   (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 consensus in the WG behind the document.
 

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

There is no opposition to this document.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
 
The document does not contain nits.

   (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].


The document has been split into normative and informative references.

***BEGIN DOWREF ALERT***

This document refers normatively to two informative documents 
(draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1 and draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1), one 
experimental RFC (RFC 4049), and 5 "superseded" ITU/ISO standards ('02 
X.680, X.681, X.682, X.683, X.690).  The references to the two 
informative documents  are necessary because we're using '02 ASN.1 and 
we want to import ASN.1 objects instead of copying them.  The '02 ASN.1 
is used instead of the  '08 ASN.1 because that's what PKIX/SMIME use 
(there are freeware compilers available).  The experimental ID reference 
is necessary to  allow us to import syntax for binary time instead of 
duplicating it.  Note that I believe the IETF LC message will  need to 
be manually modified to indicate these these DOWNREFs.

***END DOWNREF ALERT***

              
   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

     There are no IANA considerations.
 

   (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?

     The ASN.1 modules were compiled with dummy OID values while we
     await final assignment.

   (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 provides the ASN.1 variant of the Portable Symmetric
     Key Container (PSKC), which is defined using XML in
     draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05.  The symmetric key container defines
     a transport independent mechanism for one or more symmetric keys
     as well as any associated attributes.  The container by itself is
     insecure; it can be secured using either the Dynamic Symmetric Key
     Provisioning Protocol (DSKPP) [draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp] or a CMS
     protecting content types [RFC5652].  In addition to the key
     container, this document also defines ASN.1 version of the XML
     elements and attributes defined in PSKC.

   
   Working Group Summary

     The WG agreed that this container would be the optional container,
     but there was a contingent (both in the WG and in the IEEE) that
     wanted the ASN.1 container. The format for the container has
     been stable since version -02. The ASN.1 converted XML elements
     and attributes were added in the last version to ensure alignment
     with PSKC.

   Document Quality

     The document is a product of the KEYPROV working group.

     The text of this document is derived from the XML elements and
     attributes defined in draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc. As such,
     this document represents the ASN.1 based version of the XML-based
     counterpart.
    
   Personnel

     Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.