Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-manet-ibs-03
(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?
The intended status is “Proposed Standard”,
and this is indicated in the title page header.
(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 builds on RFC7182 and RFC6507, and
provides a framework for using Identity-Based
Signatures in MANET routing protocols.
Working Group Summary:
The document was presented at the WG meeting at
IETF’90, and had reasonable discussion both before
and after this meeting. There were significant
expression of support for adoption as WG document,
a couple of reviews posted after adoption, which were
addressed. On the author’s initiative, external
verification of the example provided in Appendix A
was sought from a crypto-expert.
WGLC saw positive support for publication, with
nobody appearing to be “in the rough"
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?
There are existing implementations of this extension
mechanism, known to the document shepherd.
Dr. Benjamin Smith provided independent verification
of the example provided in Appendix A, and is
recognized for this in the acknowledgements.
No media type, nor MIB doctor, review done, as this
was not needed
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The document shepherd is:
The responsible Area Director is:
(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.
The document shepherd performed a total of five
reviews of this document, during WG processing:
1) Initially, prior to WG adoption
2) Extensively, following WG adoption, providing
3) Extensively, following the author addressed the
review comments from 2), to satisfaction
4) Extensively, once WGLC was terminated, considering
WGLC comments received, which resulted in a
document revision (-03) fixing nits, format
issues, and a reference issue.
5) Finally, a review of the -03 version
The document shepherd estimates, that the -03 version
of the document is technically identical to the -02
version which was WGLCed.
The document shepherd believes, that the -03 version
of the document is ready for being forwarded to the
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd is satisfied that sufficient
reviews 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 took place.
This document addresses security, within the
framework set forth in RFC7182, and uses RFC6507
for the cryptographic functions. Both RFC7182 and
RFC6507 has received extensive scrutiny from the
As such, the document shepherd believes that the
habitual SEC-DIR review for standards track documents
is expected — but that no additional reviews are
necessary, nor beneficial.
(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 document shepherd raised, in his review,
the question of if “Updates RFC7182” is appropriate.
The document author and the document shepherd both
are “on the balance” as to if it is, or is not
Both parties, however, believe that either way is
tolerable, and agreed to seek advice from the
responsible AD on this particular matter
The argument for “is not appropriate” goes like this:
What this document does is:
(i) only things permissible by RFC7182, and
(ii) makes registration from IANA registries
set up by RFC7182
(noting, of course, that RFC7181 doesn’t
“Updates 5444” when making registrations
for TC messages from the repositories
set up by RFC5444 as a case of precedent)
The argument for “is appropriate” is, that the
way this document interprets <key-id> might not
be as is described in RFC7182.
(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?
The author has confirmed to not be aware of any
IPR that requires disclosure regarding this specific
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There have been no IPR disclosures filed that
reference 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?
As described under Working Group Summary, the
consensus behind this document appears quite 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.)
There have been no threats of appeal raised, nor
has any extreme discontent been indicated.
(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.
IDNITS raises only concerns on a DOWNREF, addressed
in 15) below.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Such reviews are not required for this document.
(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.
This document, intended for publication on std.
track, has a downref to RFC6507, which is published
RFC6507 does not appear in the downrefergistry
and must thus be explicitly called out in the
IETF Last Call.
(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.
Advice from the responsible AD is sought on if
this document “Updates RFC7182”, or not, as
If, on the responsible ADs advice, this document
updates RFC7182, then this is called out in the
(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).
All protocol extensions that the document makes, are
associated with the appropriate reservations
Referenced IANA registries have been clearly
No new IANA registries are created
The designated expert for the registry confirmed on
14/09/03 that he finds the registrations
requested in this document as aggreable:
(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.
No new IANA registries are created.
(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 such checks required nor performed: no XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, or other formal language
for which automatic checks exist, is included in this