Subject: [HOKEY] Document Shepherd write-up for Handover Key Management and Re-authentication Problem Statement

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:16:17 -0800

Here is the Document Shepherd write-up for the Handover Key Management and
Re-authentication Problem Statement
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-03.txt).

 (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?

Glen Zorn is the document shepherd for this document and has personally
reviewed the document and believes that it is ready to be forwarded 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?

They document has received adequate review from both working group and non
WG members.  The Document Shepherd has no concerns with respect to the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

(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.

The Document Shepherd is unaware of any specific concerns or issues with the
document.  No IPR disclosures related to draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem have
been submitted.  

(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 represents a reasonably strong consensus with the active
members of the working group in favor of the document moving forward.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
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  <http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html>
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). 

Yes.

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?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 

Yes.

Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? 

No.

If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
completion?

Not applicable.

Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in
[RFC3967]? 

No.

If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has split references with no downward or dependent 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 [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?

The IANA Considerations section exists only to say that no IANA actions are
required.

(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:

Technical Summary

The current Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) keying framework is not
designed to support re-authentication and handovers.  This is often the
cause of unacceptable latency in various delay-sensitive environments (such
as mobile wireless networks).  The HOKEY Working Group plans to address
these problems by designing a generic mechanism to reuse derived EAP keying
material for handover.  This document describes the Handover Keying (HOKEY)
problem statement.  

Working Group Summary 

The document represents rough consensus of the working group. 

Document Quality 

This document has been reviewed extensively and the Document Shepherd
belives it to be of high quality.

Personnel 

Glen Zorn is the document shepherd.   The responsible Area Director is Tim
Polk. 

_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:37:45 -0800

Correction: the link to the draft should be
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-07.txt.
Sorry for any confusion.

From: Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:16 PM
To: 'Tim Polk'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [HOKEY] Document Shepherd write-up for Handover Key Management and
Re-authentication Problem Statement 

No.

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/). 

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Not applicable.

No.

Not applicable.

Technical Summary

Working Group Summary 

Document Quality 

Personnel