Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis-07

[Ballot discuss]
This review is based on the diff. [1]

  [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc5202&url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis-05.txt

- Why is NULL confidentiality MTI here?

- Aug 23rd: changes proposed at [2] are fine when done

  [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03894.html

[Ballot discuss]
This review is based on the diff. [1]

  [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc5202&url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis-05.txt

- Why is NULL confidentiality MTI here?

-06 doesn't change that, asked via mail as I thought we had
gotten some new text

[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS for the IESG:

This standards track draft is having a down-ref to RFC 4493. This has not been called in the IETF last call.

However, according to [1] RFC 4493 has been accepted as down-ref earlier on, so this may be just ok.

[1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 5.1.2 --

The table of suite IDs includes "NULL-ENCRYPT with HMAC-SHA-256", but NULL encryption is referred to as just "NULL" everywhere else in the document, as well as in RFC 2410.  Should the table be consistent with the text, or should there be an explanation of why it isn't?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis-05.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

The IANA actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent on the completion of actions requested in another document. The dependency is on [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] which IANA has reviewed separately (RT#763079).

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the newly created "Parameter Type" subregistry, created through the approval of:

[I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis]

two new parameter types are to be registered as follows:

TLV: ESP_INFO
Type: 65
Length: 12
Data: Remote's old SPI, new SPI, and other info
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

TLV: ESP_TRANSFORM
Type: 409l5
Length: variable
Data: ESP Encryption and Authentication Transform(s)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the NOTIFY message atypes subregistry, created through the approval of:

[I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis]

two new message types are to be registered as follows:

Value: 18
Notify Message Type: NO_ESP_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 19
Notify Message Type: INVALID_ESP_TRANSFORM_CHOSEN
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with
  the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-06-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo specifies an Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP) based
  mechanism for transmission of user data packets, to be used with the
  Host Identity Protocol (HIP).  This document obsoletes RFC 5202.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-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 memo specifies an Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP) based
  mechanism for transmission of user data packets, to be used with the
  Host Identity Protocol (HIP).  This document obsoletes RFC 5202.

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.

Personnel:

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 03 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?

  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.

  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.

  None.


(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?

  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.)

  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.

  No nits.

(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?

  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 is a normative reference to a draft. That draft is being
  advanced 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.

  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.

  Yes, it will obsolete RFC 5202, as discussed in the title page,
  Abstract, and Introduction of this draft.


(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).

  The IANA Considerations Section is consistent with the body of the
  document.


(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 such new registries are defined.


(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.