PROTO Writeup of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18
[2018-02-08 Thu]
(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, as indicated on the title page 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 memo describes a new namespace, the Host Identity namespace,
and a new protocol layer, the Host Identity Protocol, between the
internetworking and transport layers. Herein are presented the
basics of the current namespaces, their strengths and weaknesses,
and how a new namespace will add completeness to them. The roles
of this new namespace in the protocols are defined.
This document obsoletes RFC 4423 and addresses the concerns raised
by the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility. It incorporates
lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201 and goes
further to explain how HIP works as a secure signaling channel.
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 rough?
There was WG consensus behind this document.
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?
As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the
Experimental HIP specs. At least, HIP for Linux and OpenHIP will
be updated to comply with the updated Standards-track
specifications.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Terry Manderson is the
responsible 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 shepherd reviewed revision 18 of this document, which
was ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
(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 concerns.
(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?
The whole WG understands the document and agree with
it. Nevertheless, the number of active participants in the HIP WG
is limited at this point.
(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.
The document contains no 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 reviews are needed.
(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. The only two documents that are not RFCs yet are already in
the publication requested state:
[I-D.ietf-hip-dex]
[I-D.ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal]
(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.
Yes. This RFC-to-be will obsolete RFC 4423 when approved, as
discussed in the Title Page, the Abstract, and 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).
The (non op) IANA Considerations Section is complete and
consistent.
(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.
No new experts are 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 such checks were needed.