Shepherd writeup

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis

(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, as indicated in the header. The HIP WG is
  currently chartered to revise a few Experimental RFCs into Proposed
  Standards. This is one of those RFCs. The HIP WG learned a few
  lessons experimenting with those Experimental RFCs. RFC 6538
  documents those learnings.

(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 specifies the details of the Host Identity Protocol
   (HIP).  HIP allows consenting hosts to securely establish and
   maintain shared IP-layer state, allowing separation of the
   identifier and locator roles of IP addresses, thereby enabling
   continuity of communications across IP address changes.  HIP is
   based on a SIGMA- compliant Diffie-Hellman key exchange, using
   public key identifiers from a new Host Identity namespace for
   mutual peer authentication.  The protocol is designed to be
   resistant to denial-of-service (DoS) and man-in-the-middle (MitM)
   attacks.  When used together with another suitable security
   protocol, such as the Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP), it
   provides integrity protection and optional encryption for
   upper-layer protocols, such as TCP and UDP.

   This document obsoletes RFC 5201 and addresses the concerns raised
   by the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility.  It also
   incorporates lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201.

Working Group Summary:

  There is full consensus behind this document.

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?

  As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the
  Experimental HIP specs. At least HIP for Linux and OpenHIP will be
  updated to comply with the standards-track specs.


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

Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd.
Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.

(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 version 12 of the document and
  believes it is ready for publication request.

(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.

  No special reviews are needed.

(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.


(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?


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

  Yes, an IPR disclosure was filed against this draft in 2011. The WG
  decided to mandate a co-factor of 1 in an attempt to avoid the first
  patent referenced in the IPR disclosure.

(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?

  The whole WG understands the document and agree with it. Note that
  this is the revision of an existing RFC (i.e., a bis 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.)


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

  The warnings given by the ID nits tool are not relevant as they do
  not represent actual issues.

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

  No further formal reviews are needed.

(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 completion?

  There are two normative references to Internet drafts. Those two
  drafts are being progressed at the same time as this one.

(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.


(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.

  Yes, the publication of this RFC will obsolete RFC 5201. RFC 4843 is
  listed in the document header and is discussed in the Abstract,
  although not in the Introduction.  If having the Introduction
  discuss RFC 4843 as well was considered necessary, copying the last
  paragraph of the Abstract and pasting it into the Introduction could
  be trivially done.

(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

  The IANA Considerations Section is consisten with the body of the

(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 registries follow the Expert Review policy.

(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 formal language review is needed.