vim:fo=tcroql com=b\:>>
This is a request to the IESG to approve publication of "Kerberos Option
for DHCPv6", draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-12.txt, as a Standards
Track RFC. This document is a product of the Kerberos Working Group.
(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 this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman,
>> <jhutz@cmu.edu>. I have reviewed this document, and I believe
>> it is ready for IETF-wide review and publication as a
>> Proposed Standard.
(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?
>> This document has received significant review within the
>> Kerberos working group, and also received review from members
>> of the Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC) working group. The
>> WGLC announcement was sent to both lists. Any issues raised
>> have been resolved.
(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?
>> I don't believe any particular outside review is required,
>> beyond that already received from the DHC WG.
>> Of course, more review is always welcome.
(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.
>> I have no concerns.
>> No IPR disclosures related to this document have been filed.
(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 concensus within the working group to publish 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.)
>> There have been no expressions of discontent.
(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?
>> This document has been run through the idnits tool, and was
>> reviewed manually for compliance with requirements not checked
>> by the automatic tool. No additional formal review criteria
>> apply to this document.
(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].
>> References have been split appropriately. There are no
>> normative downward references or normative references to
>> documents that are not ready for advancement.
(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 [RFC2434]. 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?
>> This document allocates four DHCPv6 option codes and creates
>> a registry for KDC transport protocols.
(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?
>> No part of this document is written in a formal language
>> requiring such verification.
(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 defines a new DHCPv6 option to carry a set of
configuration information related to the Kerberos protocol [RFC4120].
This document also defines three sub-options to be used within this
new option, which specify a realm name of the Kerberos, a list of IP
addresses of the Key Distribution Center of that realm, and a client
principal name to distinguish a Kerberos client by the DHCPv6 server.
Working Group Summary
This document represents the consensus of the Kerberos Working Group.
It was also reviewed in the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group,
in keeping with that working group's responsibility for reviewing
DHCP options and extensions.
Document Quality
XXX
Personnel
The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman.
The responsible Area Director is Stephen Farrell.