Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-abfab-aaa-saml

(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?

Informational. It could be experimental as well, but since the specification of
various SAML constructs lies outside the realm of the IETF and the definition
of the 2 RADIUS attributes is not really experimental, informational seems the
right classification. Yes

(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:

Technical Summary:

The document describes the use of the Security Assertion Mark-up
  Language (SAML) with RADIUS in the context of the ABFAB architecture.
  It defines two RADIUS attributes, a SAML binding, a SAML name
  identifier format, two SAML profiles, and two SAML confirmation
  methods.  The RADIUS attributes permit encapsulation of SAML
  assertions and protocol messages within RADIUS, allowing SAML
  entities to communicate using the binding.  The two profiles describe
  the application of this binding for ABFAB authentication and
  assertion query/request, enabling a Relying Party to request
  authentication of, or assertions for, users or machines (Clients).
  These Clients may be named using a NAI name identifier format.
  Finally, the subject confirmation methods allow requests and queries
  to be issued for a previously authenticated user or machine without
  needing to explicitly identify them as the subject.  These artifacts
  have been defined to permit application in AAA scenarios other than
  ABFAB, such as network access.

Working Group Summary:

This document had a few false starts before it really got traction. That has
resulted in a rather lengthy process to get going. The challenge was getting
the right set of experts on RADIUS and SAML together, now consensus is strong
that this is the right approach.

Document Quality:

There is as far as I know 1 implementation of the protocol. At this stage there
are no indications for wide industry take-up. Special mention deserves Scott
Cantor (editor of the SAML2.0 spec and member of OASIS SSTC) for doing a
thorough review and guide the authors on the SAML side.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Klaas Wierenga
Responsible Area Director: Stephen Farrell

(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.

I have reread the latest version of the document, verified that all comments on
the list were satisfactory addressed and that the document as a whole was
consisten and methodical.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The depth of the reviews are satisfactory, with Scott Cantor on the SAML
aspects, Sam Hartman on GSS and Alan deKok for RADIUS I believe we have
excellent reviewers. I would have like a bit more breadth, but have confidence
that with the reviews we got the document is sufficiently mature and vetted.

(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.

No additional specific review in addition to the ones done is needed.

(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.

None

(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?

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No

(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?

As usual, there are a few individuals that drive the discussions, but I believe
that there is strong consensus that this is the right approach.

(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.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

there are a few too long line warnings and mention that the informational
reference for the DIAMETER base protocol points to RFC 3588 that is obsoleted
by RFC 6733. Those need to be fixed.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

I am not aware of any formal review criteria that need to be met apart from the
IANA registration.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

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?

no

(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.

No

(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.

No

(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).

I have verified that all IANA registry required elements are being called out
and sufficiently described in the IANA section.

(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.

I don't expect future allocations

(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.

I have not reviewed in detail the XML code snippets that describe the SAML
interactions, but this was performed by Scott Cantor.
Back