Namespace Considerations and Registries for GSS-API Extensions
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-10-01
|
11 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-10-01
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2017-03-31
|
11 | Eric Rescorla | Shepherding AD changed to Eric Rescorla |
2017-03-31
|
11 | Eric Rescorla | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead |
2017-03-30
|
11 | Benjamin Kaduk | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-11.txt |
2017-03-30
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-30
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: kitten-chairs@ietf.org, Alexey Melnikov , Nicolas Williams |
2017-03-30
|
11 | Benjamin Kaduk | Uploaded new revision |
2015-10-14
|
10 | (System) | Notify list changed from kitten-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-07-20
|
10 | (System) | Document has expired |
2015-01-13
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-10.txt |
2015-01-13
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-09.txt |
2014-04-19
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-08.txt |
2012-12-01
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2012-12-01
|
07 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2012-05-30
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-07.txt |
2011-12-20
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-12-20
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-12-20
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-12-20
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-12-20
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching. |
2011-12-19
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed. Hanging about too long. Will need a new WGLC if not set to dead. … State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed. Hanging about too long. Will need a new WGLC if not set to dead. I've asked WG chairs to sort it by Jan 16. |
2011-03-31
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Responsible AD has been changed to Stephen Farrell from Tim Polk |
2010-03-23
|
06 | Tim Polk | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Expert Review by Tim Polk |
2010-03-23
|
06 | Tim Polk | Note field has been cleared by Tim Polk |
2009-07-27
|
06 | Tim Polk | asking for early feedback from IANA |
2009-07-27
|
06 | Tim Polk | State Changes to Expert Review from AD Evaluation by Tim Polk |
2009-05-11
|
06 | Tim Polk | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Tim Polk |
2009-04-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Shawn Emery, yes, yes (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document had adequate review from the WG members and members that were familiar with IANA. The shepherd doesn't know of reviews by non WG members. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns. No IPR disclosure is known to the author or the shepherd. (1.e) 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? There is WG consensus to publish the document. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) Nobody threatened to appeal. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? idnits 2.11.09 found no nits in the document. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. There are only normative references in the document. No downref references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section exists. In addition to the existing RFCs that will populate the initial IANA registries: RFC2743, RFC2744, RFC2853, RFC1964 and RFC4121. there will be one individual submission that will also be a part of the initial registry: draft-lha-gssapi-delegate-policy (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No ABNF, no MIB, no XML, and no ASN.1. (1.k) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document provides IANA procedures for registering new extensions to the Generic Security Services Application Programming Interface (GSS-API). Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing worth noting regarding WG process. 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? This ID provides procedures for populating existing namespace IANA registries and describes guidance for future GSS-API extension registries. In regards to the existing namespace; there will be a review by the WG and chairs of the existing RFCs and verification of implementations in order to verify that these are in sync. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shawn M. Emery is the document shepherd for this document. |
2009-04-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-04-01
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-06.txt |
2009-03-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-05.txt |
2008-03-25
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-04.txt |
2008-03-24
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-03.txt |
2008-02-25
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-02.txt |
2005-10-19
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-01.txt |
2005-02-15
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-00.txt |