Subject: [KEYPROV] Draft Proto Writeup

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:18:11 -0400

In an effort to streamline this, here is my proposed writeup for
Keyprove once we have schema issue and the boilerplate nits fixed:

   (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?

Document Shepherd is Phillip Hallam Baker
Shepherd has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes
that it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

   (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 has been extensively reviewed by working group members
including experts in the field of cryptographic protocol design and
implementers of cryptographic protocols.

These reviews are in my view more than adequate.

   (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

   (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?

Pretty much unanimous. Some people would like to do other stuff in
addition, but no issues identified with the document.

   (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?

Checked and fixed

   (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].

Yes

there are references to the following non-IETF documents:

NIST Standards        'FIPS180-SHA' 'FIPS197-AES'
PKCS Specifications   'PKCS-1' 'PKCS-5' 'PKCS-5-XML'
ISO Standard          'UNICODE'
W3C Standards         'XMLDSIG' 'XMLENC'

None of these should cause downref issues in my view.

   (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?

Yes

There are four sets of registration instructions. Of these the first
three are standard registration of XML type namespace and schema data.

A status code registry is created for the protocol. This has a
'specification required' constraint and is thus not requiring ongoing
maintenance associated with an open registry.

   (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?

Yes.
[Currently working on an XML issue here]

   (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

   DSKPP is a client-server protocol for initialization (and
   configuration) of symmetric keys to locally and remotely accessible
   cryptographic modules.  The protocol can be run with or without
   private-key capabilities in the cryptographic modules, and with or
   without an established public-key infrastructure.

   Two variations of the protocol support multiple usage scenarios.
   With the four-pass variant, keys are mutually generated by the
   provisioning server and cryptographic module; provisioned keys are
   not transferred over-the-wire or over-the-air.  The two-pass variant
   enables secure and efficient download and installation of pre-
   generated symmetric keys to a cryptographic module.

Working Group Summary

   I would note that we seem to have had more discussion of issues
   connected with XML style and semantics than on the problem. In
   particular there does not seem to be a perfect answer to the
   problem of how to manage versioning of XML protocols.

Document Quality

   The document is a product of the KEYPROV working group.

Personnel
   Document Shepherd is Phillip Hallam-Baker

   The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
   Responsible Area Director and [email-masked] together with
   the request to publish the document.  The Document Shepherd SHOULD
   also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group
   mailing list.  If the Document Shepherd feels that information which
   may prove to be sensitive, lead to possible appeals or is personal
   information needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email
   to the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd
   Write-Up is published openly in the ID Tracker.  Question (1.f) of
   the Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this
   more confidential handling.

-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/