Shepherd writeup

(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?

<response to (1)>
i) Type of RFC Requested: Informational
ii) It is the proper type of RFC because the document describes implementation recommendations for a proposed standard and is not a proposed standard in itself.
iii) The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header
</response to (1)>

(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:

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.

<response to (2) Technical Summary>
The document describes a minimal profile of the Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol.  IKEv2 includes several optional features, which are not needed in minimal implementations.  The document describes what is required from a minimal implementation and also describes various optimizations which can be done.
</response to (2) Technical Summary>

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?

<response to (2) Working Group Summary>
There was nothing noteworthy in the WG process.
</response to (2) Working Group Summary>

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?

<response to (2) Document Quality>
The author and another party have independently produced prototype code according to the document (see There are no reviewers worth a special mention.
</response to (2) Document Quality>


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

<response to (2) Personnel>
The Document Shepherd is Robert Cragie. The Responsible Area Director is Brian Haberman.
</response to (2) Personnel>

(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.

<response to (3)>
The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and has one concern (detailed below), which does not require any action prior to publication.
</response to (3)>

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

<response to (4)>
The document has not had a particularly broad review given the subject material.
</response to (4)>

(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.

<response to (5)>
As the document is regarding a minimal implementation profile of IKEV2, it is recommended that it is reviewed by the security Area Director.
</response to (5)>

(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.

<response to (6)>
The Document Shepherd has some concerns regarding the amount of text copied from RFC 7296 and either used verbatim or with some modification. When discussed with the author, this was clearly intended and the author's preference, therefore the Document Shepherd does not require any action regarding this concern.
</response to (6)>

(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?

<response to (7)>
The authors have confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures required for full conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79.
</response to (7)>

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

<response to (8)>
There are no IPR disclosures that reference the document.
</response to (8)>

(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?

<response to (9)>
It represents the concurrence of a few individuals. There was little discussion amongst the WG in general.
</response to (9)>

(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.)

<response to (10)>
</response to (10)>

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

<response to (11)>
  Checking nits according to

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 32
     longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (March 2015) is 170 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Informational

  == Missing Reference: 'CERTREQ' is mentioned on line 264, but not
'SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ]...'

  == Missing Reference: 'IPSECARCH' is mentioned on line 517, but not
'in the protocol's specification.  For ESP and AH, [IPSECARCH]...'

  == Missing Reference: 'MD5' is mentioned on line 975, but not
'PRF_HMAC_MD5                1         (RFC2104), [MD5]...'

  == Missing Reference: 'SHA' is mentioned on line 976, but not
'PRF_HMAC_SHA1               2         (RFC2104), [SHA]...'

  == Missing Reference: 'ADDGROUP' is mentioned on line 997, but not
'2048-bit MODP      14         [ADDGROUP]...'

  == Missing Reference: 'IDNA' is mentioned on line 1135, but not defined
     'in [IDNA], for example ""....'

  == Missing Reference: 'EAI' is mentioned on line 1140, but not
     'contain any terminators.  Because of [EAI], implementations wo...'

  == Missing Reference: 'PKCS1' is mentioned on line 1251, but not
'scheme specified in [PKCS1], see [RFC7296] Section 2.15 for...'

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
</response to (11)>

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

<response to (12)>
No formal review required.
</response to (12)>

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

<response to (13)>
</response to (13)>

(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?

<response to (14)>
</response to (14)>

(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.

<response to (15)>
Not applicable to an Informational RFC.
</response to (15)>

(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.

<response to (16)>
The publication of this document will not affect the status of any existing RFCs.
</response to (16)>

(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).

<response to (17)>
There are no IANA considerations.
</response to (17)>

(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.

<response to (18)>
There are no new IANA registries.
</response to (18)>

(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.

<response to (19)>
There are no parts of the document written in a formal language.
</response to (19)>