Subject: [HOKEY] Proto writeup for draft-ietf-hokey-preauth-ps-09

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:04:36 +0200

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 <[email-masked] 
 >. 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.

  (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?

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) 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.

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
        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 type reviews?

Idnits/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 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?

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:

     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 allow a clear distinction 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.

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html