Shepherd writeup

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?

The document requests the "standard track" type.  This is the 
appropriated type as the document defines new key exchange 
methods, deprecates weaker ones and provides recommendations.
These recommendations are necessary for interoperability 
between the implementations. In addition, the draft updates 
RFC4462 which is of standard track.  

The type is indicated din the header. 

(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

  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 specifies additions and amendments to SSH GSS-API
   Methods [RFC4462].  It defines a new key exchange method that uses
   SHA-2 for integrity and deprecates weak DH groups.  The purpose of
   this specification is to modernize the cryptographic primitives used
   by GSS Key Exchanges.

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 

The document has not raised any issue but received few 
feed backs as well. 

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?

The only currently know implementation are patches for OpenSSH in Fedora:


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd Eric Rescorla is the 
Security Area Director. 

(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.

The document seems ready to me. 

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


(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.


(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.

No issues have been raised, although little reviews have been provided. 

(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.

Both co-authors confirm they have no  disclosure and are conform with BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

Does not apply here.

(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?   

No issues have been raised. 

(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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

idnits 2.15.01 


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4462, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC4462
     though, so this could be OK.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  == Line 415 has weird spacing: '... string    out...'

  == Line 421 has weird spacing: '... string    ser...'

  == Line 433 has weird spacing: '... string    out...'

  == Line 446 has weird spacing: '... string    out...'

  == Line 460 has weird spacing: '... string    mic...'

  == (2 more instances...)

     (Using the creation date from RFC4462, updated by this document, for
     RFC5378 checks: 2005-08-23)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
     have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
     the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
     this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. 
     (See the Legal Provisions document at for more information.)

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ANSI-X9-62-2005'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1321

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7546

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7748

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SEC2v2'

     Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

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


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

All references are either normative or informative. 

(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?

I-D.ietf-curdle-ssh-curves is required and has been sent to the IESG. 

(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. 

The downward normative references are: 
ANSI-X9-62-2005 is added as a justification for the described representation of x. This is not an RFC but fall into the RFC 3967 category of standards defined by other standard bodies. 

'ISO-IEC-8825-1' is necessary for the format of the code point as a result, it is expected to be a normative reference. This is not an RFC but fall into the RFC 3967 category of standards defined by other standard bodies. 

RFC 1321, Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm",  describes MD5 defined by an external body. 

RFC 7546 Kaduk, B., "Structure of the Generic Security Service (GSS) Negotiation Loop" should be normative as security considerations apply here, and as such must be read by those implementing the specification. 

RFC 7748, Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves for Security" defines curves25519 and curve448. These specification are necessary for the implementation of the document. The specifications fall into the RFC3967 category of protocols defined by other bodies.  

 'SEC2v2' Certicom Research, "SEC 2: Recommended Elliptic Curve Domain Parameters". The specifications fall into the RFC3967 category of protocols defined by other bodies.  

(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.

The current draft updates RFC 4462. This is stated in the Header, in the abstract and in the introduction. 

(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).

IANA assignment requires IETF review. There is no need to provide experts. 
The registry has been specified to ease the reading.

(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.


(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.

Does not apply here