PROTO for draft-ietf-babel-dtls-07.txt
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Proposed Standard. Title page indicates Standards Track. This document
standardizes the securing of Babel with DTLS.
(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
The Babel Routing Protocol does not contain any means to authenticate
neighbours or protect messages sent between them. This documents
specifies a mechanism to ensure these properties, using Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS).
Working Group Summary:
There was a clear consensus in favor of the document. There was no
opposition except for one participant who changed to support.
The document is of good quality and has had a reasonable variety of
reviews with comments resolved to the satisfaction of the reviewers.
Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux
(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's review is here:
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
An early security review took place. See
An early routing review took place. See
(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?
No special 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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
No IPR disclosures.
(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 a good consensus of active participants in the WG.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
No such formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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
There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis but that
draft is in WG Last Call and expected to advance shortly.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)?
There are no down-refs.
(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?
The front page indicates that this document Updates rfc6126bis. This
is an arguable point.
(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.
The document requires only the allocation of a port number for Babel
over DTLS. Having such a second port for the secured version of a
protocol is a fairly common practice. This is shown in the IANA
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
No new registries created.
(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 automated checks required.