As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
(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?
BCP is requested. This is the proper RFC type because it provides guidance to protocol designers
regarding cryptographic algorithm agility.
(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
Many IETF protocols use cryptographic algorithms to provide
confidentiality, integrity, authentication or digital signature.
Communicating peers must support a common set of cryptographic
algorithms for these mechanisms to work properly. This memo
provides guidelines to ensure that protocols can easily migrate
from one algorithm suite to another one over time.
Working Group Summary
This document was not produced by any IETF WG. It was started
by the IAB, and it has been extensively discussed on the SAAG mail
list.
Document Quality
This document has been extensively discussed on the SAAG mail list
as well as in the IAB program on privacy and security. It represents the
rough consensus from those discussions.
(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.
This document was started by the IAB and was reviewed within the IAB's
privacy and security program. Versions 4-6 were then discussed extensively on
the SAAG mail list. A secdir review was conducted by Leif Johansson.
As shepherd, I reviewed the changes from 4 to 5, 5 to 6, and 6-7; in each case,
I believe the changes both responded to community concerns and made the document
better. While this is not a working group document, I believe it has gotten sufficient
review from within one IETF community to make it ready for a wider last call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns on the review from the security community. There was
a request for review to the applications/ART area directorate from
Eliot Lear. That has not yet completed, but it is common for these to
occur in parallel with the IETF Last Call.
(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 noted above, this document will require review from the applications/ART
area directorate; this has been requested but is not complete.
(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.
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.
No IPR disclosures are needed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures are needed for the normative references.
(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?
This document is the result of extensive discussion, and the advice
it gives seems to have garnered rough consensus in the venues where
it has been reviewed. This consensus is not unanimous, but the general
support appears broad.
(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 one has threatened an 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 document is more than 15 pages and lacks a Table of Contents.
One can be added if desired.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does not specify a MIB, media type, or URI, and there
has been no other identified requirement for a formal review.
(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?
There are just two normative references, and they are both BCPs.
(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.
There are no downward 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 interested community considers it unnecessary.
This document does not seek to change the status of any 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).
No IANA actions are needed, and the IANA Considerations section
says that.
(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 IANA registries are created at all.
(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.
No formal language is used.