(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?
We are requesting publication of this document as Proposed Standard.
This document updates the Kerberos PKINIT protocol, defined in
RFC4556, to by crypto-algorithm-agile.
(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 updates PKINIT, as defined in RFC 4556, to remove
protocol structures tied to specific cryptographic algorithms. The
PKINIT key derivation function is made negotiable, the digest
algorithms for signing the pre-authentication data and the client's
X.509 certificates are made discoverable.
These changes provide preemptive protection against vulnerabilities
discovered in the future against any specific cryptographic
algorithm, and allow incremental deployment of newer algorithms.
Working Group Summary
This document represents the consensus of the Kerberos Working Group.
Document Quality
XXX who will implement?
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?
Personnel
The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman.
The responsible Area Director is Stephen Farrell.
(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.
XXX pending review response
I have reviewed this document, and any issues raised have been
resolved to my satisfaction. I believe the document is now ready
for IETF-wide review and publication as an RFC.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
This document has undergone review and discussion within the
working group. Each aspect has been discussed in some detail,
and in some cases, the approach used dates back to before RFC4556
was published. I am satisfied that this document has received
sufficient 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.
I don't believe any particular external review is needed for this
document.
(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.
I have no particular concerns with this document.
(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.
XXX pending author IPR confirmation
All authors have confirmed that any required IPR disclosures have
been filed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
A search using the tool at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/
did not find any IPR disclosures related to this document.
(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?
There is consensus within the working group to publish this 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.)
There have been no expressions of discontent.
(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.
XXX pending pre-RFC5378 disclaimer response
XXX pending obsolete normative references
This document has been run through the idnits tool, and was reviewed
manually for compliance with requirements not checked by the automatic
tool.
(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 criteria apply to this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
References have been split appropriately.
(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?
There are no normative references to other documents that are not
ready for advancement.
(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.
This document contains a normative downward reference to RFC6194,
an Informational document describing security considerations for
SHA-0 and SHA-1.
This document also contains refrences to a number of external
documents, including NIST special publication 800-56A and ITU
X.680 and X.690
(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.
XXX pending updates header
This document updates RFC4556, which defines the Kerberos PKINIT
protocol. This fact is called out in the document header, abstract,
and 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).
This document makes use of two numbers in an IANA-managed registry
which were previously reserved for it, but allocates no new values.
It also requires registration of values in existing registries which
are managed by the Kerberos working group and have not yet been
turned over to IANA control.
(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.
This document creates no registries requiring Expert Review.
(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.
XXX pending ASN.1 module validation
This document contains an appendix containing an updated version
of the PKINIT ASN.1 module. XXX who validated it?
vim:fo=tl tw=75