Shepherd writeup
rfc7360-13

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.

(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?

   Experimental, which is stated in the document header. For a new
   security solution for RADIUS an experimental protocol is the right
   categorization.

(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 specifies how the DTLS protocol may be used as a fix
  for security issues RADIUS has, namely authentication and encryption of
  RADIUS packets.  The document also describes how implementations
  of the solution proposal can co-exist with current RADIUS systems.

Working Group Summary

   The solution is a result of a long process in the WG. One of the last
   sticking issue was multiplexing of DTLS and RADIUS over port 1812.
   WG decided against multiplexing and the DTLS can only be used on
   existing RADSEC port. The WG has reached a consensus on the
   entire documented protocol.

Document Quality

   There are two known implementations and one planned (if not
   done already).

   There is no need for MIB or other experts review.

Personnel

   Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
   Benoit Claise (bclaise@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 document shepherd has reviewed the document during its writing
   and the final -09 version. The shepherd thinks the document quality
   is adequate for publication.   Specifically the shepherd acknowledge 
   the good amount of implementations and operational guidance written
   into the document.

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

   None. The document has received actually more that usually reviews
   also from people not typically active in the WG.

(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 document has received early reviews (through the dir-coor)
   from Sec-Dir, Ops-Dir and Gen-Art. Comments from both reviews have
   been addressed.

(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.

   None.

   A minor note. The document uses RFC2119 language but the RFC2119
   reference is placed into information references. The shepherd thinks this
   is fine, since the document itself is on an experimental track.
   
(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.

   Author has confirmed he is not aware of an IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

   None.

(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?   

   The document has reached solid agreement of the active part of
   RADEXT WG. Since the document has been around for a long time
   and been also implemented, we can conclude WG and external
   implementers agree with the document.

(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.) 

   None.

(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 complain about RFC2119  'NOT RECOMMENDED' keyword.
   That keyword is documented in RFC2119 but not part of the automatically
   provided XML2RFC conversion text on RFC2119 keywords.

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

   None.

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

   Yes.

(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?

   Yes.

(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. 

   None.

(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.

   None.

(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).

   No new IANA registries or code points are needed. However, this
   document uses the existing RFC6614 RADSEC port number for DTLS
   purposes.

   Assignment Notes: add the text "The UDP port 2083 was already
   previously assigned by IANA for "RadSec", an early implementation
   of RADIUS/TLS, prior to issuance of this RFC."

   The shepherd (and the WG) thinks this is a valid action since RADSEC
   only uses and needs the "TCP port 2083". DTLS can use the "UDP
   port 2083".

(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.

   None.

(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.

   IDnits passed. There are no XML, BNF or MIB definitions.
Back