Hi Tim, Here is the Proto writeup for draft-ietf-hokey-preauth-ps-09. (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-preauth-ps-09 is Tina Tsou <tena at huawei.com>. I believe this document is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. I have identified a number of minor editorial improvements that could be made, but since the document has completed WGLC these can be dealt with as part of the IETF Last Call process 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 well-reviewed by key WG members. The fact that the post-compromise version of the document (see 1.e) was carefully scrutinized and reworked for two more versions is evidence of the WG's continuing commitment to its success. (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. No concerns. No IPR disclosure. (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? Some of the content led to a four-month controversy because some members felt it was inappropriate given the document title. The controversy was settled with the assistance of the Area Director at the March, 2009 meeting, with an agreement on alternative terminology so that the phrase "EAP preauthentication" retained a specific meaning within the broader category of "early authentication". The Working Group subsequently demonstrated a solid consensus behind this compromise on the list. (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 an d URI ty /Datatracker finds no issues. No additional reviews applicable to this document. (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 th e docume bsp; 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 Dir ector so nbsp; can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Not applicable (section exists with no requirements). (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 Extensible Authentication Protocol early authentication may be defined as the use of EAP by a mobile device to establish authenticated keying material on a target attachment point prior to its arrival. This draft discusses the EAP early authentication problem in detail. Working Group Summary The Working Group experienced major controversy over the inclusion of what was eventually termed the "Authenticated Anticipatory Keying Usage Model" within the document. This controversy was resolved by changing the document title to n between the new model and "EAP preauthentication", reserving the latter term for a very specific architectural arrangement.. Document Quality The document is a problem statement and as such, lays the groundwork for development of solutions to the identified problems. |