(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
(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 O/TWAMP security mechanism requires that both the client and
server endpoints possess a shared secret. Since the currently-
standardized O/TWAMP security mechanism only supports a pre-shared
key mode, large scale deployment of O/TWAMP is hindered
significantly. At the same time, recent trends point to wider IKEv2
deployment which, in turn, calls for mechanisms and methods that
enable tunnel end-users, as well as operators, to measure one-way and
two-way network performance in a standardized manner. This document
discusses the use of keys derived from an IKEv2 SA as the shared key
in O/TWAMP. If the shared key can be derived from the IKEv2 SA, O/
TWAMP can support certificate-based key exchange, which would allow
for more operational flexibility and efficiency. The key derivation
presented in this document can also facilitate automatic key
management.
Working Group Summary
The document was discussed extensively within the IPPM WG, and has gone through
two WGLCs. There was no significant controversy during the discussion of the
document -- the main points of discussion had to do with the details of how to
implement the binding between O/TWAMP and IPsec and whether the packet format
used needed to be backward-compatible with non-IPsec O/TWAMP. The document has
consensus to go forward.
Document Quality
As the document "glues" O/TWAMP to IPsec, it required review from both
communities The document has had less comment from the IPsec WG than from the
IPPM WG, but comments from IPsec were addressed.
Personnel
Brian Trammell is the document shepherd. Spencer Dawkins 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 been reviewing the document and following discussion
and changes since its adoption as a WG item, and believes the document is ready
for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
IPPM reviews on the O/TWAMP side of the document are more than adequate. More
review from IPsec would have been nice (we had one in-depth review, and the
reviewer there also expressed concern that more IPsec review would be useful),
but were not forthcoming.
(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.
See (4) above.
(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.
(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 have no concerns about WG consensus.
(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 formal review criteria.
(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.
(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).
The IANA considerations section requests the allocation of a new bit in the
TWAMP-modes registry.
(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.
(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 content.