IANA Rules for MIKEY (Multimedia Internet KEYing)
draft-arkko-mikey-iana-01

[Ballot discuss]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I noticed a small point that needs to be fixed.

This document cannot obsolete RFC 4909 since that document was obsoleted by RFC 5410. Indeed, this I-D should not reference 4909 at all. It should always just reference 5410, I think.

[Ballot comment]
Consider text encouraging future registrants/area directors to seek IETF review instead of starting at IESG approval if there's any doubt about the need for that review.

[Ballot comment]
IDnits reports:
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5410
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6043

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five
IANA Actions that need to be completed.

First, in the Multimedia Internet KEYing (Mikey) Payload Name Spaces
registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads

a new registry should be created for MIKEY Versions.  New registrations
in this registry are to be done through IETF Review.  The initial value
for this registry should be as follows:

Value    Version                  Reference
-----    -------------            -------------
0x01    Version 1                [RFC-to-be]

Second, in a variety of subregistries of the Multimedia Internet KEYing
(Mikey) Payload Name Spaces registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads

the registration procedures should be changed to "IETF Review or IESG
Approval." The registries affected by this change are as follows:

Next payload
PRF func
CS ID map type
Encr alg
MAC alg
DH-Group
S type
TS type
ID type
Cert type
Hash func
SRTP Type
SRTP encr alg
SRTP auth alg
SRTP PRF
FEC order
Key Data Type
KV Type

Third, in a variety of subregistries of the Multimedia Internet KEYing
(Mikey) Payload Name Spaces registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads

the registration procedures should be changed to "Specification
Required."  The registries affected by this change are as follows:

Prot type
Error no
General Extension Type
KEY ID Type
OMA BCAST Types

Fourth, in a variety of subregistries of the Multimedia Internet KEYing
(Mikey) Payload Name Spaces registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads

the range of valid values for the registries was not recorded or
explicitly defined.  The following changes/additions are to be made to
the noted registries:

+--------------------------------+--------------+
| Namespace                      | Valid values |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| C envelope key cache indicator | 0 - 3        |
| S type                        | 0 - 15      |
| Key Data Type                  | 0 - 15      |
| KV Type                        | 0 - 15      |
+--------------------------------+--------------+

Fifth, in a variety of subregistries of the Multimedia Internet KEYing
(Mikey) Payload Name Spaces registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads

the name of the registry is not provided.  IANA will update the entire
registry to ensure that the subregistries are labelled consistently and
that all subregistries have appropriate titles.

IANA understands that these are the only actions required upon
publication of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce , msec@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Rules for MIKEY (Multimedia Internet KEYing)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Rules for MIKEY (Multimedia Internet KEYing)'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-04-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-mikey-iana/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-mikey-iana/

This draft has the following downrefs:

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5410

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6043

(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?

Ari Keränen is the document shepherd and considers this document
ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has been read by MIKEY experts and presented in a MSEC WG
meeting.

(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?

The document shepherd does not have such concerns.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

The document shepherd does not have such concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The consensus of the interested community is solid.

(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].

Two normative references (RFC 5410 and 6043) are informational RFCs.

(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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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 is correct.

(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 document does not contain formal language.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
introduction of the document. If not, this may be an
indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
introduction.

This document clarifies and relaxes the IANA rules for Multimedia
Internet KEYing (MIKEY). The document changes, for majority of the
namespaces, the requirement of "IETF Review" into "IETF Review or IESG
Approval". For some namespaces, the requirement is changed to
"Specification Required".

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the discussion in the interested
community that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough? Was the document
considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?

Document was presented in the MSEC WG at IETF 80, but consensus was that
it is best to handle it as an AD-sponsored document.

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?

This document does not specify a new protocol.