Shepherd writeup
rfc7791-09

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?

	The document will be on the Standards Track, and as this
	document describes an extension to the standards track IKEv2,
	it is proper type for this document. Intended status is
	indicated in the title page.


(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

  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.

	This document presents the solution that allows to clone IKEv2
	SA, where an additional SA is derived from an existing one.
	The newly created IKE SA is set without the IKEv2
	authentication exchange. This IKE SA can later be assigned to
	another interface or moved to another cluster mode using
	MOBIKE protocol.

 Working Group Summary

  Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
  it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
  about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
  document?

	Document was considered for the IPsecME working group, and
	intrest was polled in November 2014. There were only positive
	responses for adopting the draft in the mailing list, but WG
	chairs concluded that there was not sufficient interest (i.e.
	not enough people). There were no controversial points pointed
	out at that point.

 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 is no known existing implementations of the protocol.
	There has been few reviews for the core IPsecME WG members,
	which has resulted some changes to the document. 
  
 Personnel

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

	The Document Shepherd is Tero Kivinen, the responsible Area
	Director is Kathleen Moriarty. 

(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 and has no
	concerns. 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?

	The document has been reviewed by few core IPsecME WG members,
	and they have provided feedback which have resulted the
	document to be changed accordingly. 

(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.

	As this is security area document, it will has security
	concerns, and will require normal security directorate review.

(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 interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

	The Document Shepherd does not have any specific 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.

	The authors have confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures
	required for full conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

	There are no IPR disclosures that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it? 

	There has been only few individuals involved in this work, but
	during the WG adoptation poll, there were few more expressing
	interest of making this document WG 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.) 

	No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (August 24, 2015) is 36 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


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

	No formal review required.

(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?

	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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

	No. This document defines an extension of IKEv2, and we have
	not marked other extensions to IKEv2 to update the base IKEv2
	specification.

(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 has two IANA actions. Those actions add two new
	entries to existing IKEv2 registry. The allocation policy of
	that registry is Expert review. The IANA considarations
	section is complete, and includes enough information for the
	IANA to do protocol actions.

(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.

	There are no new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

	There are no such section requiring automated checks in the
	document. 

Back