(1) The request is to publish this document as a Standards Track RFC,
and this is indicated in the document header.
(2) Document Announcement Write-Up.
Technical Summary
The abstract of this document is included below.
This document revises, extends and replaces RFC 6622. It describes general and
flexible TLVs for representing cryptographic Integrity Check Values (ICVs) and
timestamps, using the generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) packet/message
format defined in RFC 5444. It defines two Packet TLVs, two Message TLVs, and
two Address Block TLVs for affixing ICVs and timestamps to a packet, a message,
and one or more addresses, respectively.
Working Group Summary
Working group consensus behind the document is solid. There is strong consensus
behind a set of members in the working group that this revision is needed.
Document Quality
The document has received careful review. There are several implementations of
the document.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Joseph Macker (jpmacker@gmail.com); the
responsible Area Directors are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.
(3) The document Shepherd has participated in review both in the Working
Group, and has run the "idnits" tool against the draft.
(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the reviews of the
document; they have been thorough and there has been good technical interchange
amongst authors and other parties regarding content issues.
(5) The authors do not believe that additional reviews are required,
aside from the usual directorate reviews during IETF last call.
(6) The Document Shepherd has no concerns with the document.
(7) All authors have confirmed that they are unaware of any IPR needing
disclosure; there are no known IPR claims related to this document.
(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed, as none are required.
(9) WG consensus appears to be strong.
(10) WGLC has close and nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme discontent.
(11) There are two errors according to idnits: two downward normative
references (and some possible downrefs to non-RFCs). Refer to point 15.
(12) MIB Doctor, media type, and URI reviews are not required.
(13) All references have been defined as either normative or
informative.
(14) No normative references exist to documents not ready for
advancement. Of the normative references, all are to already published
RFC's (or to non-IETF documents, see point 11).
(15) There are several downward normative references in the document, as well as
non-IETF documents:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3447
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2104
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-FIPS-197'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-FIPS-186-3'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ANSI-X9-62-2005'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-SP-800-67'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NIST-FIPS-180-4'
The two downrefs are listed in
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry as acceptable
downrefs. The other possible downrefs are external standards.
(16) The document will obsolete RFC6622. This obsoleted RFC is listed on the
title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction.
(17) The Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section
of the document, and it appears wholly consistent with the body of said
document. Extensions are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. All IANA registries have been clearly defined.
(18) Impact on IANA registries :
A new type extension has been added to the following registries set up by
RFC6622: the ICV Packet TLV Type Extensions registry, the ICV Message TLV Type
Extensions and the ICV Address TLV Type Extensions registries.
(19) There are no sections written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
rules, MIB definitions, etc.