[netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes-07 to publication
Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Wed, 30 April 2014 19:16 UTC
Return-Path: <bpatil1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9BF1A0956; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ukkc1uTFYIFh; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF781A0946; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id gq1so2542299obb.33 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Gc0fJAGDBtTBP2G+dnuFOYpV2Gt+fzIHD/6EuFw7Bvg=; b=zIliaMPe5qAV/Ah1L4qkV+lGF7uZj2M3TdFJh5wVqgBg9HrOllp+hfc/SZBjX6p0wZ lP+JfJYLFQMjHrq40ggmo+ueonWZuvNOLE3pNLbT+9M7wRChDS4kTjIaeYmvVNkHyZiA M7gFt8MQ2Yf4nuvrXce8Ac5smiqZISLaVC9wNTBj7akFBQBbXTLGTwRZDZrLOpjSrJLz HGfexSZPeDUjHRkruimCK6DWGFnYS77XzF8rKG3IwRp5ZgKW4gkekmgFwKZljAhc+OyZ H4CWZkh5AUuGb9qhridml45oTG48fDIsj6MFrO+QSnDKG6/UOCgfVwfg8F6xauDH/+k9 OUGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.33.6 with SMTP id n6mr5617244obi.48.1398885382614; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.161.42 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:16:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T2dT1rQShnWwcUGxQRfFGANxt4WSyT1W6wG4EGywy4EoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0158a836502b8c04f8476294"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/56OkKYqf8A0HIBTQb-5dSPC1qm0
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes-07 to publication
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:16:26 -0000
Hello, The Netext working group has completed the working group last call for I-D; EAP Attributes for WiFi - EPC Integration <draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes-07> We would like to submit this I-D to the IESG for review and progress it for publication as an Informational RFC. The completed proto form for this I-D is below. -Raj (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? Informational. (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: With WiFi beginning to establishing itself as a trusted access network for service providers, it has become important to provide functions commonly available in 3G and 4G networks in WiFi access networks. Such functions include Access Point Name (APN) Selection, multiple Packet Data Network (PDN) connections and seamless mobility between WiFi and 3G/4G networks. EAP/AKA (and EAP/AKA') is standardized by 3GPP as the access authentication protocol for trusted access networks. This IETF specification is required for mobile devices to access the 3GPP Evolved Packet Core (EPC) networks. This document defines a few new EAP attributes and procedures to provide the above-mentioned functions in trusted WiFi access networks. 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? This document has been in a dormant state for a while. There is no controversy regarding the document. Using EAP attributes to address a problem that is faced in mobile networks when attaching via WiFi is one solution. And there is enough consensus in the WG w.r.t the solution. 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? There are no known implementations of the attributes for EAP defined by this document. At this time there is'nt any indication from vendors or 3GPP to use the approach specified by this document. The document has acknowledged the one person who has helped in improving the specification. The document does not specify any media type or MIB and hence no specialists have been consulted for reviews. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil Responsible AD: Brian Haberman (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. I have reviewed the document and provided feedback to the authors via the working group mailing list. See: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/msg03035.html This version of 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? I am satisfied with the depth and breadth of reviews this document has gone through. (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. No. (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. I have no concerns with any aspect of this document. (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? Yes. Each author has indicated that they are not aware of any IPRs and are in conformance of the provisions of BCP 78, 79 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure that references this document has been filed. (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? There is sufficient consensus in the WG about the proposed solution of using EAP attributes and publishing it as an Informational RFC. (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. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). == Missing Reference: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 172, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'EPC' is defined on line 557, but no explicit reference was found in the text (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 any MIB or a media type or URI type. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? The document only has informative references. (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. This is an informational document and will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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 IANA section is clear in terms ofthe registry to be used for adding the new attributes defined in the document. I am satisfied with the level of detail provided in the IANA section. (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. No new registeries need to be created. The document proposes the use of "EAP-AKA and EAP-SIM Parameters" registry for the attributes specified. (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. No XML code, BNF rules or MIB is defined in the document. -- Basavaraj Patil
- [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-neteā¦ Basavaraj Patil