(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 type of document is Informational. It provides discussion and analyzes
applicable to the use of an experimental internet protocol and represents
working group consensus. The document indicates "Informational".
(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 analyzes security threats of the Simplified
Multicast Forwarding (SMF), including the vulnerabilities of its two main
components: duplicate packet detection and relay set selection mechanisms.
Working Group Summary: There was not much discussion of this document on the WG
list, but some support was received, and no dissent was expressed.
Document Quality: The document describes the key security issues for the
protcool it considers (SMF), i.e. duplicate packet detection and relay
selection, the main issues regarding whaich are clearly described.
Personnel
Christopher Dearlove (chris.dearlove@baesystems.com) is the document shepherd
for this document. Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.com) is the responsible AD.
(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 shepherd has personally reviewed the document. His observations were taken
into account in two updates from -03 to -05. Some editorial nits identified
reviewing -05 are noted here; these do not prevent forwarding to the IESG for
publication.
- Section 3 after bullets "wrangle" -> "wrangling".
- Section 4.2.2 Expand DoS.
- The first informative reference has now been updated to -05, but that's the
document shepherd's fault in delaying this review. (Note that this draft is now
in the RFC Editor's queue, so in due course can be replaced by an RFC
reference.)
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has had limited reported reviews (the only one acknowledged is by
the document shepherd). This does not rise to the level of "concern" but may be
noted.
(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.
The shepherd does not have any concerns about the document needing additional
reviews of the nature indicated, other than the first. This is a document about
security of a routing protocol, security and routing reviews are therefore
expected.
(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.
No concerns.
(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.
All authors have confirmed to the document shepherd that they are not aware of
any IPR relating to this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been 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?
There is WG consensus, no comments opposing the document have been received.
Expressed support was limited, but present.
(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.)
Nobody has expressed any discontent or threat for appeal.
(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.
The file produces no idnits errors or flaws. It produces one warning and one
comment about document age and the ID reference noted above. Both of these are
due to the document shepherd.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The document has split its references into normative and informative. The
document shepherd agrees with the split.
(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 5226).
This document contains an empty IANA consideration section for removal by the
RFC Editor.
(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 does not add or modify any IANA 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, etc.
This document does not contain any formal language.