(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
(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 describes a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation of IP
packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This new payload type
can be used for various purposes such as decreasing encapsulation overhead for
small IP packets; however, the focus in this document is to enhance IPsec
traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to
encrypted IP encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and
frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, constant-send-rate IPsec tunnel.
The solution allows for congestion control as well as non-constant send-rate
usage.
Working Group Summary:
Various aspects of the document were discussed and debated, with multiple
revisions incorporating the results. There was no controversy though, and there
is good WG consensus.
Document Quality:
At least one implementation will be open sourced, with interest by others in
implementing. There were multiple thorough reviews by experts in the WG.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Tero Kivinen
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Roman Danyliw.
(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 have reviewed this document several time, and I think is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
None. This document do cover cross area boundaries, by including congestion
control and path mtu issues, but those were reviewed during the transport area
review.
(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.
A transport area review was given, and the resulting comments addressed to the
reviewers satisfaction.
(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 path mtu and congestion control issues are outside the most of the experts
in the WG, thus specific review from the transport area review group was
requested and done, and issues found during that was resolved, but there might
be other issues missed in those sections, as most of the reviewers in the WG do
not have expertise on those 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.
(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?
Well reviewed by many active WG members, consensus is solid.
(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.
Nothing major. There are few figures using [60] style numbers which cause
warnings in the idnits references checking system, and one table causing
warnings about weird spacing.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
(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.
(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.
(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).
All required reservations are made (a notification message state type in IKEv2),
and the newly created registry is adequately documented.
(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.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
N/A.