Shepherd writeup
rfc7182-06

(1) The request is to publish this document as a Standards Track RFC,
and this is indicated in the document header.

(2) Document Announcement Write-Up.

Technical Summary

The abstract of this document is included below.

This document revises, extends and replaces RFC 6622.  It describes general and flexible TLVs for representing cryptographic Integrity Check Values (ICVs) and timestamps, using the generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) packet/message format defined in RFC 5444.  It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and two Address Block TLVs for affixing ICVs and timestamps to a packet, a message, and one or more addresses, respectively.


Working Group Summary

Working group consensus behind the document is solid. There is strong consensus behind a set of members in the working group that this revision is needed. 


Document Quality

The document has received careful review. There are several implementations of the document.

Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Joseph Macker (jpmacker@gmail.com); the
responsible Area Directors are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.

(3) The document Shepherd has participated in review both in the Working
Group, and has run the "idnits" tool against the draft.

(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the reviews of the
document; they have been thorough and there has been good technical interchange amongst authors and other parties regarding content issues.

(5) The authors do not believe that additional reviews are required,
aside from the usual directorate reviews during IETF last call.

(6) The Document Shepherd has no concerns with the document.

(7) All authors have confirmed that they are unaware of any IPR needing
disclosure; there are no known IPR claims related to this document.

(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed, as none are required.

(9) WG consensus appears to be strong.

(10) WGLC has close and nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

(11) There are two errors according to idnits: two downward normative references (and some possible downrefs to non-RFCs). Refer to point 15.

(12) MIB Doctor, media type, and URI reviews are not required.

(13) All references have been defined as either normative or
informative.

(14) No normative references exist to documents not ready for
advancement. Of the normative references, all are to already published
RFC's (or to non-IETF documents, see point 11).

(15) There are several downward normative references in the document, as well as 
non-IETF documents:
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3447
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2104
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-FIPS-197'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-FIPS-186-3'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ANSI-X9-62-2005'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-SP-800-67'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-FIPS-180-4'

The two downrefs are listed in http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry as acceptable downrefs. The other possible downrefs are external standards.

(16) The document will obsolete RFC6622. This obsoleted RFC is listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction.

(17) The Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section
of the document, and it appears wholly consistent with the body of said
document. Extensions are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. All IANA registries have been clearly defined.

(18) Impact on IANA registries :

A new type extension has been added to the following registries set up by RFC6622: the ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions registry, the ICV Message TLV Type Extensions and the ICV Address TLV Type Extensions registries.

(19) There are no sections written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. 
Back