Handover Keying (HOKEY) Architecture Design
draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design-11

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Handover Keying (HOKEY) Architecture Design) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Handover Keying WG (hokey) to
consider the following document:
- 'Handover Keying (HOKEY) Architecture Design'
  as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Handover Keying (HOKEY) Working Group seeks to minimize handover
  delay due to authentication when a peer moves from one point of
  attachment to another.  Work has progressed on two different
  approaches to reduce handover delay: early authentication (so that
  authentication does not need to be performed during handover), and
  reuse of cryptographic material generated during an initial
  authentication to save time during re-authentication.  A basic
  assumption is that the mobile host or "peer" is initially
  authenticated using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP),
  executed between the peer and an EAP server as defined in RFC 3748.

  This document defines the HOKEY architecture.  Specifically, it
  describes design objectives, the functional environment within which
  handover keying operates, the functions to be performed by the HOKEY
  architecture itself, and the assignment of those functions to
  architectural components.  It goes on to illustrate the operation of
  the architecture within various deployment scenarios that are
  described more fully in other documents produced by the HOKEY Working
  Group.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO Write up was:

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd for draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design-07 is Tina Tsou .
I believe this document is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.


      the document had adequate review both from key WG members
      and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

Yes, the review has been adequate. Both the OPS and security
people active in the WG has reviewed it.


(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
      AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

  (1.d) Do have any specific concerns or
      issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
      been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
    &n s issue.

No concerns. No IPR disclosure.

(1.e) 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 represents the concurrence of a few individuals with others being silent.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
&n bsp;&nbs ;discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
      Doctor, media type and URI type review

Data tracker finds no issues. Idnits is satisfied.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative? 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
      strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
      so, list these downward references to support the Area
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Split as required. No down-references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?


Not applicable (section exists with no requirements).

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
      an automated checker?

Not applicable.

(1.k) 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 p;

  Technical Summary

  The Handover Keying (HOKEY) Working Group seeks to minimize handover
  delay due to authentication when a peer moves from one point of
  attachment to another.  Work has been progressed on two different
  approaches to reduce handover delay: early authentication (so that
  authentication does not need to be performed during handover), and
  reuse of cryptographic material generated during an initial
  authentication to save time during re-authentication.  A starting
  assumption is that the mobile host or "peer" is initially
  authenticated using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP),
  executed between the peer and an EAP server as defined in RFC 3748.

  This document specifies the HOKEY architecture.  Specifically, it
  describes design objectives, the functional environment within which
  handover keying operates, the functions to be performed by the HOKEY
  architecture itself, and the assignment of those functions to
  architectural components.  It goes on to illustrate the operation of
  the architecture within various deployment scenarios that are
  described more fully in other documents produced by the HOKEY Working
  Group.



    Working Group Summary
      The document is a product of the Hokey working group. The document has
      working group consensus.


    Document Quality
      The document provides the guideline for implementors to use different functions, components and protocol
      summarized in this document to adapt to different usage scenarios
      and situations and is therefore not subject to implementation.
      Also this document has gotten sufficient review from people with both
        OPS and Security background. The quality of the document is good.