Shepherd writeup

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?

   Proposed Standard. These attributes are needed by real shipping
   product, thus we are not anymore dealing with anything experimental.

(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

   Excerpt from the abstract:

   RFC 3580 provides guidelines for the use of the Remote Authentication
   Dialin User Service (RADIUS) within IEEE 802 local area networks
   (LANs).  This document proposes additional attributes for use within
   IEEE 802 networks, as well as clarifying the usage of the EAP-Key-
   Name attribute (updating RFC 4072) and the Called-Station-Id
   attribute (updating RFC 3580).  The attributes defined in this
   document are usable both within RADIUS and Diameter.

Working Group Summary

   The document has lingered in the RADEXT WG for a long time.
   There is a solid working group consensus behind the document.

Document Quality

   There are no known full implementations of the document. However,
   some of the defined attributes are already in use but using either
   experimental or vendor specific RADIUS attribute Type code space.
   There are plans for implementations and also 3GPP has a dependency
   to this document in their Stage-3 specifications and 3GPP is actually
   waiting for this document to ship.

   The document received extensive reviews from IEEE.


  Jouni Korhonen ( is the document shepherd.
  Benoit Claise ( 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 has reviewed the latest -09 version. The technical
   content is sound.

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


(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.

   Document has been reviewed extensively by IEEE.
   There is no need for reviews from DNS, DHCP, XML etc directorates.
   The document should be reviewed either by AAA Doctors or some Diameter
   expert, see the reason in step (6) and the fact that the document re-uses
   EAP-Key-Name from Diameter EAP RFC4072.

(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 (informatively) references to RFC4005 on its Diameter
   considerations. The RFC4005 will soon be obsoleted by RFC4005bis.
   The RFC4005bis also deprecates the RADIUS-Diameter automated
   translation, which is discussed in detail in Section 4 Diameter Considerations.

   The shepherd would recommend removing entire Section 4, since
   RADIUS-Diameter considerations are not really endorsed anymore.
   Furthermore, Section 4 uses Diameter AVP Flag rules as defined in RFC3588,
   which has already been obsoleted by RFC6733 and there the AVP Flag rules
   are less due to e.g. deprecation of Diameter in-band security.

(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. Each author has individually acknowledged that there are
   no disclosures.

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


(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 WG consensus on this document is solid.

(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.) 


(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

   IDnits produce a number of comments and one warning. None of
   them need any action. 

   For the "pre-RFC5378 work" comment, authors were OK with that
   and no further actions are needed.

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


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


(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?


(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. 


(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.


(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 IANA considerations seem to be correct.

   Since this specification relies entirely on values assigned by IEEE802,
   no new registries are needed to be establish for maintenance by the IANA.

   The document will consume 17 out of remaining 21 "legacy" RADIUS
   attribute Type codes. The shepherd still advices to use the "legacy" code space
   instead of the RFC6929 extended space. The foreseen early adopters (like 3GPP)
   are unlikely to require RFC6929 support yet.

(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.


(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.

   IEEE had extensive reviews on the document.