As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
The MPLS working group requests that
LDP Hello Cryptographic Authentication
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-04.txt
Is published as a RFC on the Standards Track.
(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 document should be published as a Proposed Standard, the document
header says "Standards Track"
This document need to be on the standards track since it specifies
protocol, procedures and mechanisms, a TLV and ab ID to go with the
TLV for LDP which is a standard track protocol.
(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 introduces a new optional Cryptographic Authentication
TLV that LDP can use to secure its Hello messages. It secures the
Hello messages against spoofing attacks and some well known attacks
against the IP header. This document describes a mechanism to secure
the LDP Hello messages using National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Secure Hash Standard family of algorithms.
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Taking a mostly security document through a working group like MPLS
is a bit tricky. Most of the participants do not have there focus on
security issues. While a large majority agree that the security work has
a huge value, it is often not highest on the priority list for the avarage
MPLS participant.
Securing routing protocols, like LDP, started with a analysis done by
the KARP working group. KARP pointed to the UDP based Hello
messages as a potential risk.
The current draft has been developed by the MPLS working group and
reviewed by KARP during wglc. The comments from people active in
KARP hs been very valuable.
Document Quality
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?
Currently we do not know of existing implementations of this draft,
but a mail has been sent to the mpls and karp mailing list requesting
information. The write-up will be updated as soon as new information
is received.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD
Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
(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 reviewed the document before starting the poll t
if there were consensus to make it a wg document.
A second time while preparing the working group last call, this
also includes a review of the updates made as a result of the wglc.
The third time while preparing the Shepherd Write-up.
In addition the document was through an early RTG Area Directorate
review on the Shepherd's request.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
It has been a bit hard for the shepherd to follow the comments that
came out of the review by participants of the KARP working group, but
seeing the resolution of the comments made it much easier to follow.
The review in the MPLS working group have been quite good, and the
draft was reviewed by the RTG Area Directorate in parallel to the wglc.
(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.
No such reviews other than the security reviews done by participants
in the KARP working group.
(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 such 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 the authors have stated on the working group mailing list that they
are unaware of any IPR related 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 against 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 discussed earlier the security issues, though recognized as
important, are not at the working group focus. However the discussion
around resolution of the of the wglc comments has been constructive.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summaries 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.)
No such threats.
(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 document passes the nits-tool, with the exeception of:
" -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-180-3'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-198' "
This were discussed when the document was accepted as a working
group document. The "FIPS" references are not considered to be
down references.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes - all the references have correctly been identified as 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?
All the references, including the informative, are to existing RFCs or
FIPS-references.
(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 normative references.
(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.
The publication of this document will not change the status of
any other document.
(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).
The document requests allocation of a "Cryptographic Authentication TLV"
and a "LDP Cryptographic Protocol ID".
The IANA section is well and clearly written.
(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 registries that requires 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.
No such reviews necessary.