Subject: [HOKEY] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design-07

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:07:36 +0000

Hi Stephen,
Here is the Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design-07.

 (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?

The document shepherd for draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design-07 is Tina Tsou <[email-masked]>. 
I believe this document is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. 

       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?

Yes, the review has been adequate. Both the OPS and security
people active in the WG has reviewed it.

 (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 concerns.

  (1.d) Do 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
    &n s issue.

No concerns. No IPR disclosure.

 (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?

It represents the concurrence of a few individuals with others being silent.

 (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
 &n bsp;&nbs ;discontent? If so, please summarize 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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
       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 review 

Data tracker finds no issues. Idnits is satisfied.

 (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].

Split as required. 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 [RFC5226]. 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?

Not applicable (section exists with no requirements).

 (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 Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
       "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
       announcement contains the following sections p; 

   Technical Summary

   The Handover Keying (HOKEY) Working Group seeks to minimize handover
   delay due to authentication when a peer moves from one point of
   attachment to another.  Work has been progressed on two different
   approaches to reduce handover delay: early authentication (so that
   authentication does not need to be performed during handover), and
   reuse of cryptographic material generated during an initial
   authentication to save time during re-authentication.  A starting
   assumption is that the mobile host or "peer" is initially
   authenticated using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP),
   executed between the peer and an EAP server as defined in RFC 3748.

   This document specifies the HOKEY architecture.  Specifically, it
   describes design objectives, the functional environment within which
   handover keying operates, the functions to be performed by the HOKEY
   architecture itself, and the assignment of those functions to
   architectural components.  It goes on to illustrate the operation of
   the architecture within various deployment scenarios that are
   described more fully in other documents produced by the HOKEY Working
   Group.

    Working Group Summary
       The document is a product of the Hokey working group. The document has 
      working group consensus.

    Document Quality
       The document provides the guideline for implementors to use different functions, components and protocol
       summarized in this document to adapt to different usage scenarios 
       and situations and is therefore not subject to implementation.
       Also this document has gotten sufficient review from people with both
        OPS and Security background. The quality of the document is good.

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html