Shepherd writeup
rfc7416-11

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?

<response to (1)>
i) Type of RFC Requested: Informational
ii) It is the proper type of RFC because the document describes a security threat 
   analysis and not a protocol
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 presents a security threat analysis for the Routing Protocol for Low-
power and lossy networks (RPL, ROLL).  The development builds upon previous work 
on routing security and adapts the assessments to the issues and constraints specific 
to low-power and lossy networks.  A systematic approach is used in defining and 
evaluating the security threats.  Applicable countermeasures are application specific 
and are addressed in relevant applicability statements.
</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>
This document is based upon draft-ietf-roll-security-framework. It was agreed to 
produce a new document in line with the ROLL WG work item:

Sep 2012: Submit first draft of RPL threat analysis to the IESG to be considered as an 
Informational RFC

The goal of this document is to outline threats with the expectation that applicability 
statements will have to cover (i.e. mitigate or solve) these threats in some way.
</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 previous document (draft-ietf-roll-security-framework) on which this document is 
based has had thorough reviews by Rene Struik, JP Vasseur, Michael Richardson and 
Adrian Farrel, which ultimately contributed to the re-submission of this document.

This document has had review from Stephen Kent and Sean Turner.
</response to (2) Document Quality>

Personnel:

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 Adrian Farrel.
</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 reviewed a previous version (06) of the document and raised some concerns which were promptly dealt with.
</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 relative to other working group documents 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 security threats to the RPL protocol, 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 no concerns.
</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. Most of the WG has been silent on 
this document.
</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)>
No.
</response to (10)>

(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.

<response to (11)>
idnits 2.13.00 

/tmp/draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-08.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (July 19, 2014) is 11 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Missing Reference: 'IS07498-2' is mentioned on line 154, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4107' is defined on line 1545, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4301' is defined on line 1548, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'FIPS197' is defined on line 1571, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Huang2003' is defined on line 1575, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.alexander-roll-mikey-lln-key-mgmt' is defined on
     line 1583, but no explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'IEEE1149.1' is defined on line 1600, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Kasumi3gpp' is defined on line 1618, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Messerges2003' is defined on line 1623, but no
     explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2080' is defined on line 1644, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2453' is defined on line 1649, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC3830' is defined on line 1655, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4046' is defined on line 1659, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5055' is defined on line 1672, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5197' is defined on line 1676, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5996' is defined on line 1700, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6574' is defined on line 1707, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Szcze2008' is defined on line 1728, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Wander2005' is defined on line 1741, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-roll-terminology has been published as
     RFC 7102

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
     draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-05

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1142
     (Obsoleted by RFC 7142)


     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 21 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
</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)>
Yes.
</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)>
The normative reference to ZigBee IP needs fixing.
</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)>
Back