Subject: [Isms] Request to publish draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-08.txt as Proposed Standard RFC

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:11:55 +0100

Pasi,

the ISMS chairs believe that the ISMS WG has reached concensus on
draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-08.txt and we request publication of this
document as Proposed Standard RFC.

Below is the document shepherd writeup for
draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-08.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? 

Juergen Schoenwaelder is the document shepherd. I have reviewed the
document several times including thef latest version and I believe it
is ready for forwarding it 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?  

The document has received WG last call reviews from

- Andrew Donati <[email-masked]>
- Pasi Eronen <[email-masked]>
- Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
- Hamid Mukhtar <[email-masked]>
- Alan Luchuk <[email-masked]>
- Joe Salowey <[email-masked]>
- David Harrington <[email-masked]>
- Tom Petch <[email-masked]>
- Robert Story <[email-masked]>

and I do not have any concerns regarding the level of review for this
document.

  (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? 

The document might benefit from a review of the TLS certificate
handling procedures by some TLS expert; perhaps this can be dealt with
as part of the security directorate review. Note that there are TLS
transport mapping documents for other management protocol produced by
other working groups (NETCONF over TLS [RFC 5539], SYSLOG over TLS
[RFC5425], SYSLOG over DTLS [draft-ietf-syslog-dtls-01.txt]); while
the authors/editors of these documents were aware of the other
documents and tried to align things, an independent review of
consistency of operations between these protocols might be useful.
Sections 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2 should be reviewed by the transport area
directors (or the transport directorate) to ensure the multiplexing
language is correct.

  (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. 

I do not have any specific concerns.
No IPR disclosure been filed as far as we know.

  (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 has WG consensus and the WG wants the document to be
published as a Proposed Standard.

  (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-one has threatened with an appeal or expressed extreme discontent.

  (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? 

The document has been checked with idnits 2.12.00 and the warnings
generated are all intentional or bugs in the tool. The document
contains a MIB module and should go through the MIB doctor review
processs.

  (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]. 

References are split in Normative and Informative. All normative
documents have been published.

  (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 document requests a number of assignment in existing registries.
It does not create any new registries. I believe the IANA instructions
are clear.

  (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? 

The MIB module has been checked using smilint for syntactic
correctness.

  (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 
     	This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple
        Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the
        Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport
        Layer Security (DTLS) protocol.  The TLS and DTLS protocols
        provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP
        applications.  This document describes how the TLS Transport
        Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of a SNMP
        Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an
        interoperable way.

     Working Group Summary 

        The working group went over several revisions of this document
	and the document and all WG last call comments have been
	resolved. There has been strong WG consensus to publish this
	document as Proposed Standard.

     Document Quality 
        There are two known implementations in progress of the
	(D)TLS Transport Model.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>