(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?
Proposed Standard,
The document is mature, stable and has received sufficient community feedback,
yes
(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
The naming extensions to the Generic Security Services Application
Programming interface provide a mechanism for applications to
discover authorization and personalization information associated
with GSS-API names. The Extensible Authentication Protocol GSS-API
mechanism allows an Authentication/Authorization/Accounting peer to
provide authorization attributes along side an authentication
response. It also provides mechanisms to process Security Assertion
Markup Language (SAML) messages provided in the AAA response. This
document describes the necessary information to use the naming
extensions API to access that information.
Working Group Summary
There was nothing particularly rough about the consensus. All contentious points
were resolved amiably.
Document Quality
The protocol is in use in the Moonshot project. Jim Schaad provided a very thorough
review that resulted in a number of changes to the document. The document was also
socialized in Kitten.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Klaas Wierenga,
Stephen Farrell
(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 followed progress of the different document versions as well as the discussion
on them. I have reread the complete document for this writeup.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has not been reviewed by many. However the quality of the reviews and
the breadth of expertise of the reviewers (SAML, EAP, GSS, RADIUS) leads me to
believe that there was sufficient validation.
(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.
One particular concern I have with abfab in general applies also to this document,
the implementation experience is rather limited.
(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
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
no
(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?
I believe there is strong consensus among the group that cares about this
document. The rest of the WG has raised no concerns during any of the presentations
or discussions on the list.
(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.
In the acknowledgments section "hartman" should be "Hartman"
ID Nits say: "There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed.",
Actually the instance points to a paragraph in a spec (2.7.3.1) not to an IP-address
ID Nits says: "Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-kitten-gssapi-naming-exts' is defined on
line 363, but no explicit reference was found in the text"
This draft is referenced in paragraph 1 (Introduction)
ID Nits says: "Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
'I-D.ietf-radext-radius-extensions'"
RADIUS-Extensions is also on standards track
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
(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, gss-eap and gss-eap-naming-extensions are progressing and expected to complete
soon, radius-extensions is ready and awaiting WG chair action.
(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
(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).
IANA considerations seem to be in order.
(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.
IANA is requested to register the "gss" URN sub-namespace in the IETF
URN sub-namespace for protocol parameters defined in [RFC3553].
Registry Name: gss
Specification: draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap-naming
Repository: GSS-API URN Parameters
(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.
N/A