As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
The I-D aims to be an Experimental RFC. This is indicated in the
I-D front page.
(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
This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers
for a given (NAI) realm using the DNS infrastructure. It can be used in
conjunction with either RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS, or even with
current RADIUS transport if transport level security is not a concern.
The solution similar but more up to date version of Diameter DNS-based
peer discovery.
Working Group Summary
The solution has a full support from the WG.
Document Quality
There are multiple implementations and the solution is also
deployed as part of the global Eduroam consortium RADIUS
roaming infrastructure.
There has not been any prior directorate reviews.
Personnel
Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
Kathleen Moriarty (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) is the responsible AD.
(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 had an extensive review of version -11. The
review resulted a set of comments (in issue tracker) that were addressed
in the version -12. AD review comments were addressed in the
version -13.
The document shepherd thinks the document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
The document reserves new S-NAPTR Service and Protocol Tags.
Those need to be reviews by the appropriate assigned experts. In the
same effort the DNS experts should review Section 3.4 "Realm to
RADIUS server resolution algorithm" algorithm.
(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.
None.
(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. No IPRs have been claimed or known to exists. The shepherd has
received a confirmation from both authors.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
None.
(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?
The solution has a full WG support.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
IDnits reports few warnings. Outdated references can be corrected by
the RFC editor. The warning about non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs
is bogus.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document needs S-NAPTR and the Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number registry expert reviews during IANA allocations.
(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?
Yes, this document normatively references to the draft-ietf-radext-nai,
which is now in IESG evaluation.
(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 does not create new IANA registries. However, it
reserves:
1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags
2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number registry
3) a number of Object Identifiers
All of these are well described in the IANA considerations section.
(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.
1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags
The IANA expert is Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com)
2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number registry
The IANA experts pool is Joe Touch; Eliot Lear, Allison Mankin,
Markku Kojo, Kumiko Ono, Martin Stiemerling, Lars Eggert, Alexey
Melnikov and Wes Eddy
3) a number of Object Identifiers
The IANA expert is Russ Housley.
(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.
None.