Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API): Delegate if Approved by Policy
draft-lha-gssapi-delegate-policy-05

[Ballot comment]
Please consider comments from the Gen-ART Review by Sean Turner on
  2009-11-15:
  >
  > Spell out CIFS on first occurance.  It's not in the RFC Editor's
  > abbreviations list
  > (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt).
  >
  > Sec 1: r/It would is desirable/It is desirable
  >
  > Sec 2: r/If the deleg_policy_req_flag is set, then delegation should
  > be performed if recommended by central policy./If the
  > deleg_policy_req_flag is set, then delegation SHOULD be performed if
  > recommended by central policy.
  >
  > Sec 5: r/the MUST/they MUST

IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.

NOTE: This document implies that the deleg_policy_req flag will be
registered by draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana, but the
deleg_policy_req flag doesn't appear to be mentioned in that
document.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Shawn Emery, yes, yes

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document had adequate review from the WG members and core
implementors. The shepherd doesn't know of reviews by non WG members.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns. No IPR disclosure is known to the author or the shepherd.

(1.e) 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 on this document and to publish this as an
individual
submission.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

Nobody threatened to appeal.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Idnits 2.11.01 found no nits in the document.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

There are only normative references in the document. No down references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists. The registry for delegate-policy
will be in the initial registry for
draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

No ABNF, no MIB, no XML, and no ASN.1.

(1.k) 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.

This document describes an interface in the GSS-API to support
delegation of user credentials if allowed by policy.

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?

Nothing worth noting regarding WG process, as this draft is not a
working group document,
but is shepherded by the WG's chair.

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?

There are already two implementations that have already implemented
the delegate-policy described in this draft.
*
* Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?

Shawn M. Emery  is the document shepherd for
this document.
Tim Polk  is the responsible area director.