Subject: PROTO writeup for Status-Server document

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:06:39 -0800

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-radext-status-server
=================================================
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server
 
   (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?
 
Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd.  I have personally reviewed
the document, and believe it is ready for publication as an Informational
RFC. 
 
   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?
 
The goal of this document is to specify the Status-Server functionality
that has been implemented in the field.  Therefore, the major concern
is whether the document reflects existing implementations.  So
far the specification has been reviewed by the implementers of the
RADIATOR and FreeRADIUS servers, both of which support Status-Server.
This would appear to address the review depth issue. 

   (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.
 
Status-Server is being published as an Informational RFC due to
limitations of the design which are documented in the Applicability
section.  However, the goal is largely to document what has
been implemented rather than trying to re-design it. 

   (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?
 
There is consensus within the RADEXT WG to publish the document as
an Informational RFC.  
 
   (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.)
 
No. 
 
   (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?
 
The document is clean in idnits:

idnits 2.12.00 

tmp/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-06.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/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

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

     No issues found here.

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

     No issues found here.

     No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   (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].
 
The references in the document have been split into normative and
informative. 

Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs.
 
   (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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 (7) exists, and is consistent with
the body of the document.  Note that no new registries are created
nor does the document require assignment of any new protocol parameters, 
since the Status-Server Code (12) was assigned in RFC 2865. 
 
   (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?

Not applicable.
 
   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:
 
      Technical Summary

This document specifies a deployed extenion to RADIUS which enables
clients to query the status of a RADIUS server.  While the
Status-Server Code (12) was defined as experimental in RFC 2865
Section 3, details of the protocol's operation have not been
documented until now.  
 
      Working Group Summary

The RADEXT WG elected to recommend this document for publication
as an Informational RFC rather than as a standards-Track RFC due
to concerns about problems with deployed implementations.  The
fixes recommended within the document are compatible with 
existing servers that receive Status-Server packets, but impose new
security requirements on clients that send Status-Server packets.
 
      Document Quality
 
The document has been reviewed by IETF RADEXT WG members. 
An expert review has been carried out by Ignacio Goyret. 
 
Status-Server has been implemented by multiple vendors, 
including RADIATOR, FreeRADIUS and Cistron. 
 
      Personnel
 
Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd for this document. 
Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD.