Subject: [karp] Submission of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-02 for Informational RFC Publication

From: Brian Weis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:43:40 -0700

This is the document shepherd writeup for the request by the KARP working group that draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-02 (The Threat Analysis and Requirements for Cryptographic Authentication of Routing Protocols' Transports) be published as an Informational RFC.

In accordance with <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html>, the following information is provided.

(1.a) Brian Weis, co-chair of the KARP working group, is the document shepherd for this document.  He has personally reviewed the most current version of this document, and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) The document has had sufficient review both inside and outside of the WG. 

(1.c) I have no concerns that specific areas were under-reviewed. There were sufficient routing and security reviews of the document.

(1.d) I do not have any concerns or issues with this document. 

(1.e) WG consensus behind this document was strong; no public opinions were expressed that it should not be published.

(1.f) There are no known threatened appeals.

(1.g) The document passes id-nits checks & there are no other reviews required.

(1.h) References are in good shape.

(1.i) There are no IANA issues in the document, and there is a placeholder section stating that.

(1.j) There is no formal language usage in the document.

(1.k) Draft Writeup:

Technical Summary
    Existing IAB work recommends the tightening of the security of the core routing infrastructure. This document provides a threat analysis for attacks against routing protocols' transports and the then enumerates the requirements for addressing the described threats. It is intended to be used by KARP design teams in their analysis of routing protocols, and will generally be useful in the analysis of routing protocols.

Working Group Summary:
   The working group support publication of this document as an informational document.

Document Quality:
    This informational document does not specify a protocol or other semantics that can be directly implemented, thus there are no machine implementations. However, in terms of quality it has been reviewed by a number of security experts.

--------
Brian Weis
KARP WG co-chair