Additional Random Extension to TLS
draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext-01

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment
in the "ExtensionType Values" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml

Value Extension name Reference
---- -------------- ---------
TBD additional_random [RFC-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext-01]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

(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?

This is an individual submission, so there is no shepherd. As author of
this document, I believe that this version 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 -00 and -01 drafts were announced to the TLS WG. There were no
significant comments on either, but I was told that people had read it
and had no problems with it.

(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 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 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 concerns.

(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?

This was not a WG document. The proposal did receive support from a few
WG participants.

(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 appeal threatened.

(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?

It currently fails ID nits because one draft in the references,
draft-ietf-tls-rfc4347-bis, has just expired; I have nudged the authors
of that draft to revive it and move it forwards. There are no MIBs,
media types, or URIs defined in the 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].

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-tls-rfc4347-bis, which is
not moving forwards quickly, but one author (Eric Rescorla) tells me
that it will move forwards on standards track.

(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?

I believe that the IANA Considerations section is clear.

(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?

None of the material use a formal language (the TLS spec is far from
formal). The TLS language was reviewed by many TLS implementers.

(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 specifies a TLS/DTLS extension that uses the additional
master secret inputs to achieve useful security properties.

Working Group Summary
This is not a WG document. However, both drafts were discussed in the
TLS WG.

Document Quality
There are no known implementations of this document, which makes sense
because it has not been approved by the IETF. A few implementers have
indicted that they would implement it.