Subject: [Pana] Submitting I-D: draft-ietf-pana-pana-08.txt to IESG

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:41:59 -0500

Hello Mark,

The PANA WG has completed the WG last call on the following ID:
I-D title: Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access 
I-D: draft-ietf-pana-pana-08

We would like to submit the ID for IESG review and IETF last call.
Below is the template with details.

-Basavaraj

================================================================

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
   they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
   for publication? 

Yes.

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
   key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
   breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes. The document has been reviewed extensively by several key WG
members. The chairs have also solicited reviews of the document from
several individuals. We (chairs) are satisified with the depth and
breadth of the reviews.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
   particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
   complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? 

No. We have attempted to ensure that the reviewers selected had varied
backgrounds and expertise and hence are comfortable that the ID has
had sufficient cross-area exposure.
   
4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
   you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
   perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
   or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
   time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
   indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No specific concerns with the document.
   
5) 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?

There is solid WG consensus behind this document. As in all WGs the
number of active individuals who are vocal and have reviewed and
commented on the spec are few. However it should be noted that there
is no dissent w.r.t the spec from any (even in the silent majority).

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.
   
7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
   ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.
   
8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
   and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
   (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
   references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
   also ready for publication as RFCs.)

References have been split into normative and informative ones.

9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
   announcement includes a writeup section with the following
   sections:

   - Technical Summary

This document defines the Protocol for Carrying Authentication for
Network Access (PANA), a link-layer agnostic transport for Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) to enable network access authentication
between clients and access networks.  PANA can carry any
authentication method that can be specified as an EAP method, and it
can be used on any link that can carry IP.  PANA protocol
specification covers the client-to-network access authentication part
of an overall secure network access framework.

   - Working Group Summary

The working group has reviewed the document not only at the LC phase
but even earlier as well. The chairs have also solicited reviewers
from varied people with different expertise in the IETF. The draft has
also been discussed at several IETF WG meetings. The documents have
been thoroughly reviewed by multiple IETF members. In addition to
general review, we have also sought and received expert reviews in the
areas including EAP (Jari Arkko, Pasi Eronen), IPsec (Francis Dupont,
Jari Arkko, Tero Kivinen), DSL (Prakash Jayaraman, Randy Turner,
Lionel Morand), AAA (Avi Lior), general (Erik Nordmark). 
Several issues identified during the last call were resolved. Currently
there are no outstanding issues on these documents. The issues were tracked
and documented in http://danforsberg.info:8080/pana-issues/
 
   - Protocol Quality

     - is the protocol already being implemented?
Yes. There are at least 2 known implementations of the protocol. There
are several others being implemented at this time as well. An open
source implementation of pana is available at:
http://www.opendiameter.org/

     - have a significant number of vendors indicated they plan to
       implement the spec?
Not at this time.
  
     - are there any reviewers (during the end stages) that merit
       explicit mention as having done a thorough review that resulted
       in important changes or a conclusion that the document was fine
       (except for maybe some nits?)
We believe that we have acknowledged all such reviewers.

-Chairs
Basavaraj/Alper

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