Subject: [KEYPROV] PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05.txt

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:45:31 +0200

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05.txt
================================================

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-05.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?

The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig ([email-masked]).
I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready 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 was reviewed by working group members. There are no concerns
regarding the depth or breadth of the review.

   (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?

There are no concerns with this document. The document contains XML 
examples
and an XML schema but the working group feels comfortable that those are
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.

There are no concerns with this document. An IPR disclosure has been
filed but did not lead to discussions within the working group.

   (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?

There is consensus in the WG behind the document.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

There is no opposition to this document.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
 
The document does not contain nits.

The document contains a URN sub-namespace registration,
XML schema registration, and a content-type registration.

   (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].

The document has been split into normative and informative references.

There are references to non-IETF documents that need to be indicated during
IETF last call:

   [PKCS5]    RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography
              Standard", Version 2.0,
              URL: http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/pkcs/, March 1999.

   [XMLDSIG]  Eastlake, D., "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing",
              URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/,
              W3C Recommendation, February 2002.

   [XMLENC]   Eastlake, D., "XML Encryption Syntax and Processing.",
              URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core/,
              W3C Recommendation, December 2002.

   [XMLENC11]
              Eastlake, D., "XML Encryption Syntax and Processing
              Version 1.1.",
              URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlenc-core1-20090730,
              W3C Recommendation, July 2009.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document has an IANA considerations section that is consistent with 
the body.
This document defines new registries and the allocation of new entries
into these registries is based on expert review.  

   (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 XML code has been validated. Some examples contain cryptographically
generated material and it was created by one of the reference
implementations.  

   (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 specifies an XML-based key format for transport and
   provisioning of symmetric keys to different types of crypto modules.
   For example, One Time Password (OTP) shared secrets or symmetric
   cryptographic keys to strong authentication devices.  A standard key
   transport format enables enterprises to deploy best-of-breed
   solutions combining components from different vendors into the same
   infrastructure.
   
   Working Group Summary

     There was consensus in the WG to publish the document.

   Document Quality

     The document is a product of the KEYPROV working group
     and the group has spend a fair amount of time working on
     this specification to ensure high quality output.
    
     Two independent implementations have been created by the
     document authors. A third implementation has been created
     by a student of Tim Polk. The code is, however, not
     available as open source.
    
   Personnel

     Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.