Shepherd writeup
rfc6880-16

This is a request to the IESG to approve publication of "An Information
Model for Kerberos Version 5", draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-10.txt,
as a standards-track RFC.  This document is a product of the Kerberos
Working Group.

(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 this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman,
       >> <jhutz@cmu.edu>.  I have reviewed this document, and I believe
       >> it is ready for IETF-wide review and publication as a
       >> Proposed Standard.

(1.b)  Has 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?

       >> This document has received extensive review within the
       >> working group, including multiple last calls, each of
       >> which generated additional comments.  It has been reviewed
       >> by WG participants familiar with several possible schema
       >> languages.  Any issues raised have been resolved.

(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?

       >> I don't believe any particular additional review is required.
       >> Of course, more review is always welcome.

(1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd 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
       this issue.

       >> I have no concerns.
       >> No IPR disclosures related to this document have been filed.

(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?

       >> There is concensus within the working group to publish this
       >> document.  This document has proceeded slowly and, as noted
       >> above, there were several last calls, primarily because there
       >> were few comments on the meat of the document between last
       >> calls.  However, there was extensive discussion at various
       >> times on what the model should cover and what uses it should
       >> aim to support.

(1.f)  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
       entered into the ID Tracker.)

       >> There have been no such expressions of discontent.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
       document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
       http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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 reviews?

       >> This document has been run through the idnits tool, and was
       >> reviewed manually for compliance with requirements not checked
       >> by the automatic tool.  No additional formal review criteria
       >> apply to this document.

(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].

       >> References have been split appropriately.  There are no
       >> normative downward references or normative references to
       >> documents that are not ready for advancement.  However,
       >> there is an informative reference to a WG document which
       >> has been stalled for some time, and some work may be needed
       >> to rework text around mentions of that work-in-progress
       >> if references to it are to be removed.

(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 [RFC2434].  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?

       >> This document requires no IANA actions per se.  However,
       >> it needs to create a new OID arc under
       >> iso.org.dod.internet.security.kerberosV5, for which we
       >> believe the security AD's to be authoritative.

(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?

       >> No part of this document is written in a formal language
       >> requiring such verification.

(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:


Technical Summary

   This document describes an information model for Kerberos version 5
   from the point of view of an administrative service.  There is no
   standard for administrating a kerberos 5 Key Distribution Center
   (KDC).  This document describes the services exposed by an
   administrative interface to a KDC.

Working Group Summary

   This document represents the consensus of the Kerberos Working Group.
   and will serve as the basis for further development of an LDAP schema.


Document Quality

   As an information model, this document does not specify anything
   that can be directly implemented.  Rather, it forms the basis for
   further work, such as the production of an LDAP schema which can be
   used to support administration of a Kerberos KDC.  Producing such
   a schema is a chartered work item of the Kerberos Working Group.

   In addition, while this document is not necessarily intended to
   serve as a basis for KDC database design, it has been informed by
   the design of several implementations, including some which are
   able to use LDAP as a data store for the KDC database.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman.
   The responsible Area Director is Stephen Farrell.
Back