Proto writeup for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table
(1) This document is targeted to be an Proposed Standard RFC. The title
page header indicates "Standards Track". This document proscribes
formats for manually entered cryptographic keys and associated policy.
Such specification is necessary in ensure that keys This is targeted to
be an are interoperable.
(2) Sample IESG approval announcement:
This document specifies the information contained in a conceptual
database of long-lived cryptographic keys used by many different
security protocols. The database is designed to support both manual and
automated key management.
Working Group Summary
The need for this document is clearly indicated in order to meet the
KARP charter. There was little controversy of note.
This document received substantial review from individuals participating
in both the Security and Routing Areas, and it is expected to easily
meet the requirements of routing protocols. Several routing protocol
specifications have already begun to define the format of keys in
harmony with this I-D.
Brian Weis is the Document Shepherd. The Responsible Area Director is
(3) The document shepherd has reviewed the document and believes it is
ready for publication.
(4) The document shepherd believes the document achieved sufficient
review during its development and Working Group last call process.
(5) Although this document is generated in the Routing Area, it has both
Security and Operations considerations. A substantial amount of the
working group comprises individuals who participate in the Security
Area, and some who participate in the Operations area. The document
shepherd believes an adequate security review was obtained.
(6) The document shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the
(7) All of the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR
disclosures that should be filed.
(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(9) This draft has had extensive discussion in the WG, and the shepherd
believes that consensus is broad.
(10) There are no appeals expected, or claims of discontent expected.
(11) IDnits returns two "Miscellaneous warnings", which will be
addressed in the next version of the document.
(12) There are no required formal reviews.
(13) All references are correctly identified as informative.
(14) There are no normative references in the document.
(15) There are no downward normative references references.
(16) Publication of this document will not change the status of any
(17) The IANA considerations section is consistent with document text,
and is adequate to define interoperability.
(18) No defined IANA registry is marked Expert Review.
(19) None of the document is written in a formal language.