Subject: [manet] Publication Request for draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03

From: Joseph Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 21:04:21 -0400

Please publish draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03 as an Informational
RFC. The Shepherds Writeup has been uploaded and is replicated below.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The type of document is Informational.  It provides discussion and
analyses useful for the internet and represents working group
consensus.  The document indicates "Information"

(2) 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: This document analyzes common security threats of
the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their
potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP.

Working Group Summary: The process for reaching working group
consensus on this was smooth; no controversy existed. Working group
consensus behind the document is solid.

Document Quality This document does not specify a protocol, therefore
no implementations are available. There are several NHDP
implementations existing, and the WG has a thorough understanding of
the protocol and its security considerations.

Personnel

Joseph Macker ([email-masked]) is the document shepherd
for this document.  Adrian Farrel ([email-masked]) is the
responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The shepherd has personally reviewed the document, and believes it is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.  The shepherd has
also run the id-nits tools.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has had adequate review from both key working group
members and from key non-WG members. The shepherd does not have any
concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

The shepherd does not have any concerns about the document needing
additional review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

IPR disclosures were not necessary, therefore, none have been filed.

(9) 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?

Working group consensus behind this document is solid. The document
represents rough consensus of the working group as a whole, the
document passed WGLC with minimal comments and consensus to move
forward with publication.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

Working group consensus behind this document is solid.  There have a
few minor complaints that we do not believe represent consensus
opinion.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

The document has split its references into normative and informative

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The shepherd has verified that document IANA consideration section
exists, and is consistent with the body of the document. No actions
for IANA have been requested.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None required.