Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-intermediate-07

(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?

We are requesting to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. It provides an additional IKE exchange between the IKE_SA_INIT and the IKE_AUTH exchanges. It assigns no semantics to this exchange, but follow-on documents making their way through the working group will use this exchange to negotiate PQ keys. Those will need to be standards track, and will use this as a normative reference. For this reason, it must be standards track, and this is indicated on the first page. 

(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 defines a new exchange, called Intermediate Exchange,
   for the Internet Key Exchange protocol Version 2 (IKEv2).  This
   exchange can be used for transferring large amount of data in the
   process of IKEv2 Security Association (SA) establishment.
   Introducing Intermediate Exchange allows re-using existing IKE
   fragmentation mechanism, that helps to avoid IP fragmentation of
   large IKE messages, but cannot be used in the initial IKEv2 exchange.

Working Group Summary:
  The document content was not particularly controversial. The only issue some had was about creating a generic intermediate exchange, separate from the future documents that will actually use it.
  However, the consensus was not rough.

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, YANG 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? 

There are three independent implementations of the draft, one by the author and two other by open source implementations (libreswan and strongswan). All three were tested as interoperable with each other.

Personnel:

Yoav Nir is the document Shepherd. Ben Kaduk 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. 

I have reviewed the document thoroughly and think it is ready to proceed. There are some linguistic deficiencies, mostly about missing articles, but I believe the RFC Editor is more qualified to fix these than the chairs. They do not hinder the document's readability.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

I have no concerns. Like most IPsecME documents, this document has received a review from the usual IPsec suspects: Tero, Paul W, Daniel Migault, Scott Fluhrer, and me.

(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. 

I believe the document got sufficient review. None of the examples apply, except perhaps security. Most of the reviewers mentioned above are, in fact, on SecDir.

(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. 

I do not have such 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. If not, explain why?

He has so confirmed.

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

There have been 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? 

The consensus is solid.

(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. 

I am aware of no such nits. The nits automatic check is negative.

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

The document defines an IKE extension. No formatting is used other than IKE formatting, for which the WG is the panel of experts.

(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. All normative references are to published RFCs 

(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 none.

(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. This document extends RFC 7296, but does not update it.

(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 8126).

The IANA considerations section is pretty simple as it only allocates a single exchange type and a single notification. Both allocations have already been made through the early allocation process.

(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. 

There are 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, YANG modules, etc.

There are none.  IKE still uses diagrams rather than a formal grammar.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

There is no YANG module.
Back