[TLS] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03
Joe Salowey <jsalowey@cisco.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 16:21 UTC
Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31BA21F8BE7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.909, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sfxP4Dsf1pYq for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D520721F8B62 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=6130; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317659085; x=1318868685; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: cc:to:mime-version; bh=e1TcSvslhqGJwEwWZitxb3ExYQb6LOTFVxTXq5CkiKQ=; b=lh7NSRMsWGhzg0Zj+bYtdHAfQPfncOqu5z1pzLC8FpQFf2HiQ4xgDzyr FR9jXcSC1wG2sL7uVTEXaVDvwY33UJRCNNfSY+cFX2MepOawafRH2V4W6 iRIf/UnKuYxkgsBoxjayxy7DtOSL+hmMHozytK6ivUwK3XuRn4+zlZGBC Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwEAOngiU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABBqAKBBYFsAScxDoE+NYdfmx0BnVqGQGEEh3eLaYUljDk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,480,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="5642248"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2011 16:24:45 +0000
Received: from [10.33.251.254] ([10.33.251.254]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93GOhVn025946; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:24:44 GMT
From: Joe Salowey <jsalowey@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:25:03 -0700
Message-Id: <F2EAAB18-491F-47A5-BD72-0E56A0E0B7CC@cisco.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: [TLS] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:21:44 -0000
Below is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03 which is ready for consideration by the IESG for publication as an RFC. Cheers, Joe (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? I, Joe Salowey, TLS working group co-chair, am the Document Shepherd for this document. I have personally reviewed this version of the document and I believe it to be ready for forwarding to the IESG 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 has had adequate review from key WG and non-WG members. The document Shepherd does not have concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. The document has been reviewed by the transport directorate. (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? 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. No specific concerns with the document. There has not been an IPR disclosure for the document. (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 broad support within the working group for this document. (1.f) 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 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 type reviews? Yes. (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 appropriate 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 are complete. (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 The Heartbeat Extension provides a new protocol for TLS/DTLS allowing the usage of keep-alive functionality without performing a renegotiation and a basis for path maximum transmission unit (PMTU) discovery for DTLS. Working Group Summary The is broad working group support for this document. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by the transport area directorate and feedback from that review was incorporated into the document. Several implementations are planned to enhance the support for DTLS to protect management and other UDP protocols.