Skip to main content

A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe)
draft-ietf-p2psip-share-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-03-20
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-02-08
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-01-24
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-12-12
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2016-12-12
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2016-12-12
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-12-07
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-12-07
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-12-07
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-12-07
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-12-07
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-12-07
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-12-07
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-12-07
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-12-07
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-11-13
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2016-11-13
10 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-10.txt
2016-11-13
10 (System) New version approved
2016-11-13
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Gabriel Hege" , "Matthias Waehlisch" , "Thomas Schmidt" , "Alexander Knauf" , p2psip-chairs@ietf.org
2016-11-13
10 Thomas Schmidt Uploaded new revision
2016-11-12
09 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2016-11-08
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Rick Casarez.
2016-11-03
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-11-03
09 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Please look at comments from Matt Miller's Gen-ART review:

---

Nits/editorial comments:

* idnits reports a stale reference to I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip (should
be RFC …
[Ballot comment]
Please look at comments from Matt Miller's Gen-ART review:

---

Nits/editorial comments:

* idnits reports a stale reference to I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip (should
be RFC 7904).

* In 5.1. "Overview", the word "witch" should be "which".

* In 5.3. "Overlay Configuration Document Extension", there should
be a space between "P2PSIP" and "[I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip]".

* In 6.2. "Revoking White Access", there should be a space between
"see" and "[RFC6940]".

* In 6.4. "Operations of Storing Peers", a comma is missing between
"peers" and "at" in the phrase "Storing peers at which Shared
Resource and ACL are physically stored ...".


Non-issue comments:

* idnits is reporting weird spacing and "possible code", but that
appears to be due to the Relax NG grammar.  In my opinion the nit
can be safely ignored.
2016-11-03
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-11-03
09 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- General: this feels more like an experimental spec. If the
authors didn't object I think that'd be more appropriate.

- General: can …
[Ballot comment]

- General: this feels more like an experimental spec. If the
authors didn't object I think that'd be more appropriate.

- General: can these ACLs be resources to which access is
controlled via another of these ACLs? If so, then it seems like
there may be some nasty corner-cases where things get lost (so
nobody can change 'em in future) and I don't see how one might
recover from that. (Apologies if I'm just mixed up here, I read
this fairly quickly and didn't reload RELOAD into my little head
first;-)

- 3.1: 24 bits of collision resistance isn't many. I'm not clear
why that's ok

- 3.1, last para: SHA-1 isn't a good example really, SHA-256
would be better today.

- 5.3: Is the mapping to USER and DOMAIN from certificates
well-defined? It may be in RELOAD, I forget, sorry;-) It doesn't
seem to be well-defined here anyway.
2016-11-03
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-11-03
09 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Below is Rick Casarez's OPS DIR review:

Section 6.5:
"Since stored values could have been modified or invalidated prior to their expiration, an …
[Ballot comment]
Below is Rick Casarez's OPS DIR review:

Section 6.5:
"Since stored values could have been modified or invalidated prior to their expiration, an accessing peer SHOULD use a Stat request to check for updates prior to using the data cache"

When considering security, and how this works, I would recommend changing this to MUST or advising that the lifetime be set very low. A stale ACL could allow access were none should occur.
2016-11-03
09 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-11-02
09 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-11-02
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-11-02
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-11-02
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-11-02
09 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-11-01
09 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-11-01
09 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I have a one set of substantive comments/questions, and some editorial comments:

Substantive:

- I'm confused about the validation procedure. In step one, …
[Ballot comment]
I have a one set of substantive comments/questions, and some editorial comments:

Substantive:

- I'm confused about the validation procedure. In step one, is this the user name of the user attempting to write the resource? In step 5, I do not understand how this terminates. Which ACL item is the "previously selected" one. If that refers to the one selected in the last iteration of steps 3 and 4, how do you know there are not more ACL items to iterate through?


Editorial:

-1, first paragraph, first sentence: s/that/, which
-- recurring singular plural mismatch "resources with a variable name".

-1, 2nd paragraphs: "It transfers the authorization..."
What is the antecedent for "it"?

-3. First paragraph after numbered list, "user called Authorized Peer": missing article.

-3.1, 3rd paragraph: Is the SHALL appropriate? Is an authorized user actually required to access the array in the first place?

- 6.5, first paragraph: Does the MAY grant permission, or is it a statement of fact?

-6.6, paragraphs 3 and 4: Are the MUSTs appropriate? Are there not other (perhaps application specific)  reasons one might choose not to write the value?

-- 2nd paragraph from end: The MUST seems more like a statement of fact. (E.g. "The resulting ... integer is used...")

- 4.1, last paragraph: s/implementations/implementors

- 4.2, definition of res_name_ext: The sentence starting with "This name serves..." is hard to parse.

-5.1, 4th paragraph (paragraph after example) : s/witch/which
2016-11-01
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-11-01
09 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-10-31
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing the SecDir review findings.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06890.html
2016-10-31
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-10-31
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-10-31
09 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Quick questions on sec 6.3. (Validating Write Access through an ACL):
Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the ACL …
[Ballot comment]
Quick questions on sec 6.3. (Validating Write Access through an ACL):
Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the ACL every time I give access to a resource? Wouldn't I rather validate the ACL when it's modified and then simply assume that it is sufficient that I have an entry in the ACL to provide access?
2016-10-31
09 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-10-31
09 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Quick questions on sec 6.3.  (Validating Write Access through an ACL):
- Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the …
[Ballot comment]
Quick questions on sec 6.3.  (Validating Write Access through an ACL):
- Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the ACL everytime I give access to a ressource? Whouldn't I rather validate the ACL when it's modified and then simply assume that it is sufficient that I have an entry in the ACL to provide access?
2016-10-31
09 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-10-27
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-10-27
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-10-27
09 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-10-27
09 Alissa Cooper Ballot has been issued
2016-10-27
09 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-10-27
09 Alissa Cooper Created "Approve" ballot
2016-10-25
09 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-10-21
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2016-10-21
09 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

Upon approval of this document, we understand that there are three registry actions to complete.

First, in the RELOAD Access Control Policies subregistry of the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/reload/

a single new value is to be registered as follows:

Access Policy: USER-CHAIN-ACL
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the RELOAD Data Kind-ID subregistry also in the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/reload/

a single new Kind is to be registered as follows:

Kind-ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Kind: ACCESS-CONTROL-LIST
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Question --> in which of the two available ranges in the Data Kind-ID registry should this new value be placed?

Third, in the namespace (ns) subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

ID: p2p:config-base:share
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:p2p:config-base:share
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this is an Expert Review (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required review via a separate request. Approval by the expert is required for registration. 

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2016-10-20
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley.
2016-10-18
09 Alissa Cooper Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-11-03
2016-10-14
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-10-14
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-10-14
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-10-14
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-10-12
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez
2016-10-12
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez
2016-10-11
09 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-10-11
09 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-p2psip-share@ietf.org, marc@petit-huguenin.org, alissa@cooperw.in, p2psip@ietf.org, p2psip-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-p2psip-share@ietf.org, marc@petit-huguenin.org, alissa@cooperw.in, p2psip@ietf.org, p2psip-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation
Protocol WG (p2psip) to consider the following document:
- 'A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-10-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a RELOAD Usage for managing shared write access
  to RELOAD Resources.  Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe) form a basic
  primitive for enabling various coordination and notification schemes
  among distributed peers.  Access in ShaRe is controlled by a
  hierarchical trust delegation scheme maintained within an access
  list.  A new USER-CHAIN-ACL access policy allows authorized peers to
  write a Shared Resource without owning its corresponding certificate.
  This specification also adds mechanisms to store Resources with a
  variable name which is useful whenever peer-independent rendezvous
  processes are required.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-share/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-share/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2016-10-11
09 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-10-11
09 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was changed
2016-10-11
09 Alissa Cooper Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-10-11
09 Alissa Cooper Last call was requested
2016-10-11
09 Alissa Cooper Ballot approval text was generated
2016-10-11
09 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was generated
2016-10-11
09 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party
2016-10-11
09 Alissa Cooper Last call announcement was generated
2016-10-10
09 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09.txt
2016-10-10
09 (System) New version approved
2016-10-10
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Gabriel Hege" , "Matthias Waehlisch" , "Thomas Schmidt" , "Alexander Knauf" , p2psip-chairs@ietf.org
2016-10-10
08 Thomas Schmidt Uploaded new revision
2016-04-07
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley.
2016-03-31
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-03-31
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley
2016-03-23
08 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-03-20
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-03-20
08 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-08.txt
2016-01-27
07 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2016-01-14
07 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-01-03
07 Carlos Jesús Bernardos
(A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe) draft-ietf-p2psip-share-07)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, …
(A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe) draft-ietf-p2psip-share-07)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Proposed Standard

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document defines extensions to RFC6940, and so has the same requested
status.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

(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

The document defines extensions for the RELOAD protocol to manage shared
write access to resources.  This specification also adds mechanisms to store
Resources with a variable name which is useful whenever peer-independent
rendezvous processes are required.

Working Group Summary

There was no controversy or difficulty to reach Working Group consensus.

Document Quality

There has been at least two implementations of the protocol, one by the
authors, another by the Document Shepherd.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd?

Marc Petit-Huguenin

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Alissa Cooper

(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.

The Document Shepherd has done a multiple reviews over the years, together
with an implementation of this document.  More recently a final review found
some issues that were fixed by the authors in the last revision of the
document.  The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for
forwarding to IESG for publication.

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

In addition to private reviews sent directly to the authors, at least two
other member of the WG have reviewed the document in addition to the Document
Shepherd.  The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth
of these reviews.

(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.

No additional review of portions of the document was needed.

(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.

The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues regarding the
document.

(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.

Yes.

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

No.

(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?

There is WG consensus behind this document.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

The idnits tool v2.13.02  returns 2 comments, one about an incorrect
detection of code in the text, and another about a down reference about an
IEEE specification.

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

The document meets the review criteria.

(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.

(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.

No.

(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.

(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).

The document registers a new Access Control Policy and a new Data Kind-ID,
both in registries defined in RFC 6940.

The document also registers a new URI in the config XML namespace registry
defined in RFC 3688.

(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.

None.

(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.

The Document Shepherd has manually verified the data structures defined using
the description language defined in RFC 6940. The regular expression used as
example in section 5.1 has also been manually verified.  Finally the Relax NG
Grammar has been verified by a verification tool.

2016-01-03
07 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper
2016-01-03
07 Carlos Jesús Bernardos IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-01-03
07 Carlos Jesús Bernardos IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-01-03
07 Carlos Jesús Bernardos IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-01-03
07 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-01-03
07 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Changed document writeup
2015-12-14
07 Marc Petit-Huguenin Changed document writeup
2015-11-09
07 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-07.txt
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from "Marc Petit-Huguenin"  to (None)
2015-07-15
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Notification list changed to "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
2015-07-15
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Document shepherd changed to Marc Petit-Huguenin
2015-07-15
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2015-06-17
06 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-06.txt
2015-03-02
05 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-05.txt
2014-08-29
04 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-04.txt
2014-08-10
03 Carlos Jesús Bernardos IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-03-03
03 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-03.txt
2013-08-27
02 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-02.txt
2013-02-24
01 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-01.txt
2012-10-09
00 Thomas Schmidt New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-00.txt