As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Shepherd response: Proposed Standard.
This enhances IPv6 ND for address protection by updating ND options and
messages. It is indicated in the title.
(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:
Shepherd response:
Technical Summary
This document specifies an extension to 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery
(ND) protocol defined in RFC6775 and updated in RFC8505. The new
extension is called Address Protected Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) and
it protects the owner of an address against address theft and
impersonation attacks in a low-power and lossy network (LLN). Nodes
supporting this extension compute a cryptographic identifier (Crypto-
ID) and use it with one or more of their Registered Addresses. The
Crypto-ID identifies the owner of the Registered Address and can be
used to provide proof of ownership of the Registered Addresses. Once
an address is registered with the Crypto-ID and a proof-of-ownership
is provided, only the owner of that address can modify the
registration information, thereby enforcing Source Address
Validation.
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?
Shepherd response:
This draft has been extensively discussed in 6lo and some of the crypto
experts. Following a workgroup discussion on crypto in the draft and given the
nature of crypto expertise required : - Rene Struik joined as an author in -08
to help with the crypto details. - Russ Housley reviewed -08 and suggested
following directions for removing HashEdDSA based on the decisions in RFC
8410 and RFC 8419 and curdle wg discussion. - version 09 of the draft was
updated to reference PureEdDSA (instead of earlier EdDSA25519ph). Additional
sub-section Implementation Attacks was added to the Security consideration. -
version 10 additional updates on the security processing, new security
considerations, and organized 3 different schemes for the crypto computation
: mixing NIST P-256 and Curve25519 (for the curves and ECDSA and
Ed25519) for the signature algorithms, associated with either SHA-256 or
SHA-512 for the hash function.
- version 11 as part of shepherd review found that ND option definition can be
made explicit, this resulted in the latest version 12.
With these reviews and discussions -12 is ready for IESG review.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?
Shepherd response:
There are no implementations, but there are vendors have indicated plans to
build 6lo defined backbone router as a product that would lead to adoption of
this ND extensions.
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?
Shepherd response:
Charlie Perkins, Robert Moskowitz and Russ Housley have reviewed and found 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?
N/A
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Shwetha Bhandari
Responsible Area Director: Suresh Krishnan
(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.
Shepherd response:
I have reviewed the document and my comments are addressed in version 12 that I
think is ready for IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Shepherd response:
No concerns
(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.
Shepherd response:
As described above Security/Crypto expertise was needed, Rene Struik was added
as an author to improve the quality of the document in terms of crypto related
processing. The document needs a detailed review from Security directorate as
part of the IESG processing.
(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.
Shepherd response: No concerns.
(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.
Shepherd response: All the authors have confirmed, no IPRs found.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
Shepherd response: No IPRs found
(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?
Shepherd response: There have been discussions and consensus on its current
state within the work group.
(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.)
Shepherd response: No
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Shepherd response: No idnits found.
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8505, but the
abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC8505
though, so this could be OK.
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS186-4'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SEC1'
== Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-03
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Shepherd response: N/A
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Shepherd response: Yes
(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?
Shepherd response: None
(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.
Shepherd response: There is a later version (-04) of
draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations referenced in the Informative section.
I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router is in the informative section that may get updated
based on reviews from 6man.
(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.
Shepherd response: updates RFC8505, it has been mentioned in the Abstract and
discussed in the document.
(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).
Shepherd response: Yes
Allocation of one new value for CGA Message Type[RFC 3972] name space is
recorded. New IANA registry "Crypto-Type Subregistry" in the "Internet Control
Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameter" with "Specification Required"
and "IESG Approval" for extension is defined. Request for 2 new IPv6 ND options
is recorded.
(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.
Shepherd response: N/A
(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.
Shepherd response: Not applicable as there are no formal language constructs in
the document.