Subject: draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-09.txt for Proposed Standard

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:07:10 -0400

The consensus of the Secure Shell Working group is that 
draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-09.txt should be published as a Proposed
Standard.

Checklist from: draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

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

The document has been reviewed by implementors in the WG; members of the
IETF GSSAPI community have come to this WG to review the work.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

   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?

The document is of interest to a subset of the WG and the ssh-using
community but that subset is solidly behind it.

   1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Some nits were discovered (references in the abstract and a typo); a -10
version should surface shortly to address them.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

References are split.  All referenced ID's are either in the RFC Editor
Queue or before the IESG already.

   1.ijk) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

This document describes an extension to the Secure Shell protocol
allowing the use of GSSAPI security services for authentication and key
exchange.

        *    Working Group Summary

There was smooth consensus in the working group to publish this as a
Proposed Standard

        *    Protocol Quality

The WG chair is aware of multiple interoperable implementations.