Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc

Document Shepherd Writeup for BPSec Default Security Contexts
Scott Burleigh
9 July 2021

(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?

A Proposed Standard is being requested.  The title page header indicates that
the intended status is Standards Track, and the specification documented in the
current Internet Draft is not yet mature enough to qualify as an Internet
Standard.

(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 default integrity and confidentiality security
contexts that may be used with implementations of the Bundle Protocol
Security Protocol (BPSec).  These security contexts may be used for
both testing the interoperability of BPSec implementations and for
providing basic security operations when no other security contexts
are defined or otherwise required for a network.

The Bundle Protocol Security Protocol (BPSec) [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec]
specification defines bundle integrity and confidentiality
operations for networks deploying the Bundle Protocol (BP)
[I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis]. BPSec defines BP extension blocks to carry
security information produced under the auspices of one or more
security contexts.

This document defines two security contexts (one for an integrity
service and one for a confidentiality service) for populating BPSec
Block Integrity Blocks (BIBs) and Block Confidentiality Blocks
(BCBs).

Working Group Summary:

The present document is the product of over a year of active disussion on
the DTN WG mailing list, beginning with questions raised by Area Directors
during the initial IESG review of the BPSec specification in early 2020.
In particular, it was noted that a published default security context
would be required for interoperation among BPSec implementations, both
for conformance testing and also for operational use under some circumstances.
Constraints on this interoperability security context emerged from productive
email exhanges over recent months, and at this point no aspects of the
specification are controversial.  The present document is cited as a normative
reference in the BPSec specification.

Document Quality:

No implementations of the default BPSec security context are known to exist
yet; an implementation for the Interplanetary Overlay Network (ION) product
is under development.  Significant issues were identified by Mehmet Adalier
(Antara Teknik) during Working Group Last Call and later by Ran Atkinson,
Brian Sipos, and Christian Huitema; these issues have been addressed in
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-09.  It is the sense of the Working Group
that the document has no serious problems.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Scott Burleigh.

The Responsible Area Director is Zaheduzzaman Sarker.

(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 Shepherd reviewed this Internet Draft on 28 January 2021 and
submitted detailed comments to the author at that time.  The Document Shepherd
subsequently reviewed a revised edition of the draft on6 July 2021.  The draft
is now ready for publication.

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

No, reviews of the document have been performed both by persons with good
understanding of Bundle Security Protocol and by persons with good
understanding of network security.

(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.

The document was reviewed in detail by the Security Area Directorate in
March-April of 2021 and comments were addressed in revised editions of the
draft.

(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.

The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this document. 
Technical questions have been discussed at length and resolved by consensus
within the WG.

(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?

The authors have stated that they do not claim any intellectual property rights
regarding this document.

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

No claims of intellectual property rights regarding this document have been
stated.

(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?

It is the sense of the WG Chairs and the Document Shepherd that this document
represents the consensus of the WG.  Most WG members have limited expertise in
the subject matter of the document, so only a small number of WG members have
been active in discussions of the default BPSec security contexts. However, the
WG as a whole understands the intent of the document and, broadly, the
decisions that are fundamental to it, and there is no audible dissent at the WG
meetings or on the mailing list.

(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 discontent pertaining to the default BPSec security contexts has been
evident in the WG meetings or on the mailing list.

(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.

The idnits tool finds no errors or flaws in the document and issues no warnings.
In reference to the Internet-Drafts Checklist:
  • No new URLs, email lists, or email aliases are required.
  • Verbatim replication of the IPR Disclosure and IPR Notice is not provided.
  • The Document Shepherd has found no other ID nits.

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

No formal review criteria are known to be applicable.

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

Yes, all references have been identified as normative.

(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?

The Internet Drafts for Bundle Protocol Version 7 and Bundle Protocol Security
Specification are referenced.  Those documents have been approved by IESG and
are now in the RFC Editor’s queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references in the document.

(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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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 8126).

Allocation of two additional entries in the BPSec Security Context Identifiers
Registry is noted appropriately.  Two new IANA registries are required:
Integrity Scope Flags and AAD Scope Flags.  In both cases, registration
policies and detailed initial contents are provided.

(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.

The registration policies for both new IANA registries are “Specification
Required”.

(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.

No sections of the BPSec default security contexts specification are written in
any formal language.

Back