Shepherd writeup
rfc7037-14

RADEXT chairs were requested to ask for review on RADEXT ML.

Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated 24 February 2012.

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-11 write-up

(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?

  Proposed standard. This document defines an extension to the DHCPv6 protocol
  (and defines new DHCPv6 option), which requires standards track. The intended
  type is indicated in 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:

  This document defines RADIUS DHCPv6 option that is similar to its DHCPv4
  counter-part that was defined in RFC4014. The DHCPv6 RADIUS option provides a
  mechanism to exchange authorization and identification information between the
  DHCPv6 relay agent and the DHCPv6 server.  This mechanism is meant for the
  centralized DHCPv6 server to select the right configuration for the requesting
  DHCPv6 client based on the authorization information received from the RADIUS
  server, which is not co-located with the DHCPv6 server.  The Network Access
  Server (NAS) acts as DHCPv6 relay agent and RADIUS client simultaneously in
  this document.

Working Group Summary:

  This document was called draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt prior to its
  adoption. There was unanimous support for it (9 people in favor of adoption
  and none against), so this document was adopted in May 2012. There was quite
  high interest in this work - 55 posts since its adoption. There was never any
  opposition for this work.

Document Quality:

  I'm not aware of any existing implementations, but the level of support from
  both DHCP vendors (Nominum, Weird Solutions, Cisco, ISC), hardware vendors
  (Huawei, Cisco) and operators (Orange, Telecom Italia) suggests that this will
  be implemented and deployed shortly after option code is assigned by IANA.
  There was no single lead reviewer and many people contributed to the draft (55
  posts about it to DHC list, 41 posts to RADEXT during its WG life). This
  document went through rapid updates (10 revisions 10 months), because its lead
  author - Leaf Yeh - was eager to address any comments as soon as they appeared.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Tomek Mrugalski is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.

(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 thoroughly reviewed this document twice (and had other minor
  comments in between):
  my -09 comments: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg13979.html
  my -05 comments: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg13529.html

  The issues raised in my last review were promptly addressed by authors
  in -10. This document is ready for publication in my opinion.

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

  No. I had concerns about inadequate reviews in RADEXT, but RADEXT chairs
  asked for comments and there was lengthy discussion on RADEXT mailing list
  (41 messages). Together with DHC discussions it is a throughly reviewed
  work.

(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.

  This document has had a great deal of careful DHCP review and a fair
  amount of discussion on RADEXT. It may be possible that it should be looked
  at by AAA Doctors.

(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.

  There are no outstanding issues.

(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. The authors, Leaf Yeh and Mohamed Boucadair, initially confirmed in
  writing that they are not aware of any IPR. That was not true as Huawei
  submitted IPR 2052, shortly after passed WGLC. Leaf explained that he
  didn't understood the nature of IPR claim question. After consultation
  with responsible AD, chairs re-issued WGLC, which passed without any
  objections:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14141.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14217.html

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

  Yes, IPR 2052. This was late disclosure (after WGLC), so the second WGLC was
  announced. There was no objection, so the second WGLC passed. The IPR
  claim seems benign in nature.

(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?

  There was very broad support for adopting this document. It was later reviewed
  couple times by 6 active WG participants. All changes were mostly minor and
  did not change the basic mechanism (that was operationally proven to work in
  DHCPv4).

(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. There was unanimous support for this work and nobody raised any objections.

(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.

  All outstanding issues were resolved in -11 version. This document is
  now ID nits clean.

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

  No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this
  document. This document did not go through AAA Doctors review. If such
  step is needed, please advise how can chair (or shepherd) request such a review.

(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?

  I-D.ietf-radext-ipv6-access (RFC Ed queue, AUTH48 at the time of -11
  publication, currently published as RFC6911) is a normative reference.
  All other normative references are to RFC documents.

(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. It was discussed with co-chair and responsible AD that this
  document extends, but do not update RFC3315 (DHCPv6).

(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).

  This document requests assignment of a new DHCPv6 option code. The IANA registry
  for this code is clearly identified. This document also requests creation of a
  new registry that will hold RADIUS attributes that are permitted in the RADIUS
  option. This will be a sub-set of existing RADIUS attibute types registry
  that is clearly identified (with a name and URL to IANA website). The
  initial content of the newly created registry is clearly listed in
  section 4.1. There is a clear pointer to section 4.1 in IANA
  considerations 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.

  This document calls for creation of a 'RADIUS Attributes Permitted in the
  DHCPv6 RADIUS option' registry. Its name, location, process of adding new
  values is clearly defined. -09 version do not clearly mention initial content
  of the new registry in IANA considerations section.

(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.

  There are no such parts to the document.
Back