PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis
(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, as indicated in the header. The HIP WG is
currently chartered to revise a few Experimental RFCs into Proposed
Standards. This is one of those RFCs. The HIP WG learned a few
lessons experimenting with those Experimental RFCs. RFC 6538
documents those learnings.
(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:
This document specifies an updated Overlay Routable Cryptographic
Hash Identifiers format that obsoletes the earlier format defined
in [RFC4843]. These identifiers are intended to be used as
endpoint identifiers at applications and Application Programming
Interfaces (API) and not as identifiers for network location at the
IP layer, i.e., locators. They are designed to appear as
application layer entities and at the existing IPv6 APIs, but they
should not appear in actual IPv6 headers. To make them more like
regular IPv6 addresses, they are expected to be routable at an
overlay level. Consequently, while they are considered
non-routable addresses from the IPv6 layer point-of-view, all
existing IPv6 applications are expected to be able to use them in a
manner compatible with current IPv6 addresses.
The Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers originally
defined in [RFC4843] lacked a mechanism for cryptographic algorithm
agility. The updated ORCHID format specified in this document
removes this limitation by encoding in the identifier itself an
index to the suite of cryptographic algorithms in use.
Working Group Summary:
There is full consensus behind this document. In Septembre 2012, the
authors of the draft consulted with Brian Haberman, who was the HIP
WG's responsible AD at that point, to make sure the purpose of the
draft was clear.
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 standards-track specs.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Gonzalo Camarillo 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 document shepherd has reviewed version 04 of the document and
believes it is ready for publication request.
(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
The original Experimental RFC was thoroughly reviewed by the whole
IETF community. Additionally, implementations of the Experimental
RFC have allowed the HIP community to learn a few lessons, as
documented in RFC 6538. No further reviews are needed.
(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.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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. Note that
this is the revision of an existing RFC (i.e., a bis document).
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.
The warnings given by the ID nits tool are not relevant as they do
not represent actual issues.
(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 is needeed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
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?
(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.
(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, the publication of this RFC will obsolete RFC 4843. RFC 4843 is
listed in the document header and is discussed in the Abstract,
although not in the Introduction. If having the Introduction discuss
RFC 4843 as well was considered necessary, copying the last
paragraph of the Abstract and pasting it into the Introduction could
be trivially done.
(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
The IANA Considerations Section is consistent with the body of the
(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.
There are no new IANA 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.
No special reviews were needed.