Subject: [HOKEY] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:50:15 +0000

Hi Stephen,
Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak.

 (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-erp-aak 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.

IPR disclosure to this document has been brought to the attention of the working group and is purely for defensive use. There are no other concerns.

 (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 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 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 tye review 

Datatracker 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?

The IANA considerations section exists; the registry is identified and there are no other new registries.

 (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 Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) is a generic framework
   supporting multiple types of authentication methods.

   The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) specifies extensions to EAP
   and the EAP keying hierarchy to support an EAP method-independent
   protocol for efficient re-authentication between the peer and an EAP
   re-authentication server through any authenticator.

   Authenticated Anticipatory Keying (AAK) is a method by which
   cryptographic keying material may be established upon one or more
   candidate attachment points (CAPs) prior to handover.  AAK uses the
   AAA infrastructure for key transport.

   This document specifies the extensions necessary to enable AAK
   support in ERP.

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

    Document Quality

The document develops a series of procedure, protocol for the specific usage scenario identified.
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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:08:40 +0000

Thanks Tina,

I'll get back in a few days,

S.

On 11/01/2011 11:50 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
> The document shepherd for draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak is Tina Tsou<[email-masked]>.