draft-ietf-babel-hmac-04
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Proposed Standard.
(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 describes a cryptographic authentication mechanism for
the Babel routing protocol that has provisions for replay avoidance.
It utilizes HMAC based message authentication codes (MACs).
Working Group Summary:
The Babel WG was principally Chartered to produce a Standards Track
version of the Babel protocol which was originally documented in
Experimental RFCs including the basic protocol in RFC 6126 and HMAC
based authentication in RFC 7298. In working on this transition,
rfc6126bis and rfc7298bis drafts were created; however, while the
first was adopted by the WG, the WG declined to adopt the rfc7298bis
draft and an alternative babel-hmac draft was created and adopted as
draft-ietf-babel-hmac. There has been extensive discussion of hmac
security and this draft on the list and a clear consensus to approve
it.
Document Quality:
There are multiple implementations of this draft. The document has
received multiple reviews and is of high quality.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake, 3rd
Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
by the Document Shepherd.
There were two thorough Shepherd reviews of this draft. The first is at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qnkQJ4NZwy8etciKg3Dy3j7jzbU
Later issues and the passage of time lead to a second Shepherd review
which is at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/pFx85t7Qqh3QvNxVPYtWYCLpFpE
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
This document has been reviewed by the Security Directorate here
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/96q20dMbQW2JjCzrQkzSWVJfUbY
and the by Routing Directorate
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/xwNOtwxNd58P5O17y5TksS1j2cA
(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.
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.
Yes
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/7RYF9M-ileRP2yAstcQhAaOChM4https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/eHtPPGRhGLCZp-ALe6_tjkAITk8https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/hMC8Jg-hwrhAjd7UQQ65zdYDLDU
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
IPR disclosures.
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 was a solid consensus of the active WG participants.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.
Yes, separate message has been sent.
(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.
See Shepherd reviews at point 3 above. After those, the Shepherd also
noticed that the Intended Status on the title page should be changed
to "Proposed Standard" from "Standards Track".
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
No such specialized 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. However, there is a normative reference to
draft-ietf-babel-rfc6162bis. That draft is in WG Last Call and
publication of it is expect to be requested within a few weeks.
(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 not 1, not 2, but 3 normative references in the document to
Informational RFCs. Specifically, to RFC 2104 "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for
Message Authentication", RFC 6234 "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and
SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)". and RFC 7693 "The BLAKE2 Cryptographic Hash
and Message Authentication Code (MAC)". These are all cryptographic
algorithm RFCs that are informational because they were not developed
within the IETF and are commonly used in IETF protocols.
(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?
This document updates the rfc6126bis draft as noted on the title page
and in the Abstract.
(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.
This document specifies 4 new Babel TLVs and properly documents that 4
types for these TLVs have been assigned by IANA.
(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 new IANA 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 such formal language used in this document.