Shepherd writeup
rfc7458-16


(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?

Informational.

The reason this I-D is being requested to be published as an Informational RFC is because the base RFC that it extends i.e RFC4187 (Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA) is itself an Information RFC. 
This document is adding a set of additional attributes to be included alongside those specified in RFC4187. 
A registry for the attributes specified in this I-D will be required to be created by IANA.
 

(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:

   With WiFi beginning to establishing itself as a trusted access
   network for service providers, it has become important to provide
   functions commonly available in 3G and 4G networks in WiFi access
   networks.  Such functions include Access Point Name (APN) Selection,
   multiple Packet Data Network (PDN) connections and seamless mobility
   between WiFi and 3G/4G networks.

   EAP/AKA (and EAP/AKA') is standardized by 3GPP as the access
   authentication protocol for trusted access networks.  This IETF
   specification is required for mobile devices to access the 3GPP
   Evolved Packet Core (EPC) networks.  This document defines a few new
   EAP attributes and procedures to provide the above-mentioned
   functions in trusted WiFi access networks.

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?

This document has been in a dormant state for a while. There is no
controversy regarding the document. Using EAP attributes to address a
problem that is faced in mobile networks when attaching via WiFi is
one solution. And there is enough consensus in the WG w.r.t the
solution.


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?

There are no known implementations of the attributes for EAP defined
by this document. At this time there is'nt any indication from vendors
or 3GPP to use the approach specified by this document.
The document has acknowledged the one person who has helped in
improving the specification. The document does not specify any media
type or MIB and hence no specialists have been consulted for reviews.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Brian Haberman

(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.

I have reviewed the document and provided feedback to the authors via
the working group mailing list. See:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/msg03035.html

This version of the document is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

I am satisfied with the depth and breadth of reviews this document has
gone through.

(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.


(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 concerns with any aspect of 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?

Yes. Each author has indicated that they are not aware of any IPRs and
are in conformance of the provisions of BCP 78, 79

(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 disclosure that references this document has been filed.

(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 sufficient consensus in the WG about the proposed solution of
using EAP attributes and publishing it as an Informational RFC.

(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.)

No.

(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.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
== Missing Reference: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 172, but not
     defined
== Unused Reference: 'EPC' is defined on line 557, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not define any MIB or a media type or URI type.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

The document only has informative references.

(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. This is an informational document and will not change the status
of any existing RFCs.

(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 IANA section is clear in terms ofthe registry to be used for
adding the new attributes defined in the document. I am satisfied with
the level of detail provided in the IANA section.

(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 registeries need to be created. The document proposes the use
of "EAP-AKA and EAP-SIM Parameters" registry for the attributes
specified.

(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 XML code, BNF rules or MIB is defined in the document.
Back