Test Vectors for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors-04

[Ballot comment]
A clarifying question: is the user name in Section 2.4 before
SASLprep processing or after? (or does it matter for this string?)

It would be useful to show the password in Section 2.4 also
after SASLprep processing (it seems this particular string
is changed by SASLprep)

[Ballot comment]
Christian Vogt's review:

I was asked to do a review of draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors-03 for
IESG evaluation, and I found the document to be ready for publication:

This document provides samples of STUN messages that have been found to
cause interoperability problems across implementations.  The goal is to
help making implementations standard-conform and interoperable.
Overall, the document is certainly ready for publication.  Just a minor
editorial improvement suggestion below.

In section 2, the document states:

    In this document, ASCII white spaces (U+0020) are used for padding
    within the first three messages - this is arbitrary.  Similarly,
    the last message uses nul bytes for padding. [...]

For the sake of clarity, there should be a statement about the possible
values that a padding byte may take.  I understand the text above to
mean that padding bytes can take any value.  Suggest re-wording to:  "In
general, padding bytes may take any value.  For the sample messages in
this document, ASCII white spaces (U+0020) were used for padding in the
first three messages, and null bytes were used for padding in the last
message."

[Ballot comment]
I am comfortable with the technical content in this draft, but find the Abstract and body of the
text internally inconsistent.  It seems that the scope kept expanding as the authors progressed
through the document, but never revised the front matter.

Specifically, the Abstract implies that there are only two STUN attributes that can appear in
STUN messages.  The Introduction indicates that there are two STUN attributes that include
hashes in STUN messages, and that these are in the sample messages.  Section 2, Test
Vectors, notes that the three most problematic STUN attributes are FINGERPRINT,
MESSAGE-INTEGRITY, and XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS and the document has test vectors for
each of these attributes. An additional message covers STUN authentication with long term
credentials.

From the Abstract and Introduction, I am afraid the reader will not realize the full scope of
the test vectors and may not perform some appropriate tests.  I would suggest a quick scrub
to consistently present the actual scope of the given test vectors.

[Ballot comment]
I am comfortable with the technical content in this draft, but find the Abstract and body of the
text internally inconsistent.  It seems that the scope kept expanding as the authors progressed
through the document, but never revised the front matter.

Specifically, the Abstract implies that there are only two STUN attributes that can appear in STUN messages.  The Introduction indicates that there are two STUN attributes that include
hashes in STUN messages, and that these are in the sample messages.  Section 2, Test
Vectors, notes that the three most problematic STUN attributes are FINGERPRINT,
MESSAGE-INTEGRITY, and XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS and the document has test vectors for
each of these attributes. An additional message covers STUN authentication with long term
credentials.

From the Abstract and Introduction, I am afraid the reader will not realize the full scope of
the test vectors and may not perform some appropriate tests.  I would suggest a quick scrub
to consistently present the actual scope of the given test vectors.

[Ballot discuss]
A clarifying question: is the user name in Section 2.4 before
SASLprep processing or after? (or does it matter for this string?)

It would be useful to show the password in Section 2.4 also
after SASLprep processing (it seems this particular string
is changed by SASLprep)

PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors-03
PROTO writeup date: 6-Oct-2008


(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

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?

Yes.


(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 been reviewed by several implementors, who all
concur it is accurate. Most recently:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04367.html


(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.

The only concern was if this document should be included as an
appendix to draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis. The author prefers a
standalone document, and the WG and the chair are comfortable with
a separate document.


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.

There is no IPR on this document.


(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?

It represents strong consensus.



(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 is no discontent of any sort with this document.


(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? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

All ID nits are satisfied.

Intended status: informational (which also appears on the first page)


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

Yes; there are no informational references.


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?

Two documents are normatively referenced, ICE and RFC3489bis. Both
are in RFC Editor's queue.


Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?

No, they are upward references.


If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

Yes; this document has no IANA considerations, and none are needed.


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 the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

(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 C code, in Appendix A, has been verified to compile.


(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
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.


Technical Summary:

The Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol defines
two STUN attributes -- FINGERPRINT and MESSAGE-INTEGRITY -- that
may be included in STUN messages. This document provides test
vectors for those two attributes.


Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

No.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Yes, and this document helps implementors with one of the more difficult
parts of implementing 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?

There have been several reviews, but no substantial changes since initial
publication of the document.

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?

None needed.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

Who is the
Responsible Area Director?

Magnus Westerlund, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'