Shepherd writeup

Based on Shepherd template: 2/24/2012 
Date of Revision: 2/8/2016 
Authors: Donald Eastlake, Mohammed Umair, Yizhou Li
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares 
WG chairs: Susan Hares, Jon Hudson
AD: Alia Atlas 
Reviews done: TRILL document shepherd, 
Reviews requested: RTG-Directorate review 
 - Trill WG Waited 6 months (August to February) 
with no review or clear indicate when it will occur. 
1) Type of RFC: Proposed Standard 
a) Why is this the proper type of RFC? Modifies a TRILL standard (RFC7178) 
b) 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.  

Technical Summary

   The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
   protocol includes an optional mechanism, called RBridge Channel, that
   is specified in RFC 7178, for the transmission of typed messages
   between TRILL switches in the same campus and between TRILL switches
   and end stations on the same link. This document specifies two
   optional extensions to the RBridge Channel protocol: (1) A standard
   method to tunnel a variety of payload types by encapsulating them in
   an RBridge Channel message; and (2) A method to support security
   facilities for RBridge Channel messages. This document updates RFC
Working Group Summary

 WG Issue is part of the directory services work which 
 has received discussion over 2 years.  The WG has strong 
 consensus after this lengthy discussion on the problem
 and the set of drafts for the solution (draft )

 Document Quality

 a) Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 
 No, and this draft is part of a 4 draft directory service dealing
 with directory services.  The four drafts are: 
 draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms () - describes the push/pull
 draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-05 - secure tunnel for directory push
 draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv-05 - reporting of addresses for TRILL interfaces
    in ISIS application sub-TLV (reduces/replaces need for ARP/ND )
 draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization - mechanism to optimize ARP and ND traffic
    on TRILL campus 
 b) Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification?
  Directory service mechanism are currently implemented as proprietary 
  fashions by every vendor that does some variant of TRILL (cisco, brocade, Huawei
  and others).  Until we get a full standard solution approved, the 
  existing vendors with "early TRILL" implementations have little reason
  to switch. 

  Huawei is planning implementations. Potentially Brocade and Cisco
  could switch to these mechanisms, but unless IETF standards are out
  as a set - this may not occur.   
 c) Are there any reviewers that  merit special mention as having
   done a thorough review,
   c-1) shepherd review thread:
  Comments were satisfied with the -06 of this draft as shown: 
  Authors response to shepherd:
 Shepherd's ok:

   c-1) routing-QA review:  Waited from 
   c-2) OPS-DIR review: OPS-DIR early review requested due to tunnel, no takers. 
   c-3) IANA QA Review:  IANA pre-review indicated OK.  
   C-4) SAAG QA Review: Completed 
 d) Personnel for QA review  
  d-1: document shepherd review: Susan Hares 
  d-2: routing QA reviewer:  No Reviewer assigned for 6 months. 
  d-3: IANA QA review: Michele Cotton 
  d-5: Security review: Yaron Sheffer

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

No - The WG Shepherd review and response on mail thread is sufficient

Other reviews are in progress. 

(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?  
took place.
The following reviews should be done at IESG Review time: 
  5-1: Routing Directorate
  5-2: OPS Directorate
  5-3: Security Directorate
  5-4: Gen-ART Review 

(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?  

No concerns. 

(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.

All Authors 


(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?  

	This document is a part of the directory service work that
	has gone on for 2-3 years.  The WG has discussed the issues
    and the solutions were discussed in several IETFs. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 

(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
  NITS check shows that RFC3610 and RFC5869 are informative documents
  being used in as normative references.
   - RFC3610 specifies an cypher generic authenticated encryption
   block cipher mode that can be used with authentication 
   and/or encryption functions. 
   - RFC5869 - describes a HMAC-Based Extract and expand key 
     derivation Function (HKFD) which can be used with SHA256 
	 (described in RFC6234)
   These use of these two cypher suites is described in section 4, 
   4.3, 4.5,and 4.7, and section 7. 
   Section 4 discusses the use of CT-CCM based on RFC3610 recommendations 
   for authentication (4.5) or authentication and encryption (section 4.7)
   Section 4.3 discussed the use of HKDF expansion of SHA256n to derive 
   keys from IS-IS key plus the ascii text "Channel Tunnel" plus the
   single byte of the security type (see section 4 beginning). 

   The shepherd feels this use of these drafts as part of a security
   encryption warrants a normative reference.  However, this is a 
   point the AD should also review. 

 NITS also show the last revision was in 2015, but
the next revision of the draft will fix this issue. 
I assume the AD Evaluation and routing final review will have comments. 
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
	12-1) No formal review for content beyond security review of 
	      security cypher suite usage, and IS-IS key material usage. 

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

Yes - see above discusison in section 11. 

(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?

rfc7180bis - is a normative reference, but this draft has been submitted 
to the IESG for publication. 

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
 see #14.  

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? 
	16-1) RFC7178 as listed on the draft.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the

IANA considerations were reviewed for: 
a) expansion of current references,
b) correct new IANA registry form. 

A QA Review request has been sent to IANA. 

(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.

802	6.2 Channel Tunnel Crypto Suites

	   IANA is requested to create a subregistry in the TRILL Parameters
	   registry with the following information: 

	   Name: RBridge Channel Tunnel Crypto Suites
	   Registration Procedures: Expert Review
	   Reference: [this document]

	    Value    Description      Reference
	   -------  -------------    -----------
	        0    Reserved
	        1    CT-CCM          [this document]
	   2-65534   available for assignment
	     65535   Reserved

(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.

No other were necessary.