Subject: [TLS] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-05

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:16:18 -0800

(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? 
	  
I am the document shepherd for this document.  I have reviewed the
document and 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 has had adequate review from the TLS community.  I do not
have any concerns about the depth  or breadth of 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? 
No

    (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 have no concerns about the document. There has been no IPR disclosure
related to this document. 

    (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 strong consensus with the document.  This document has similar
issues as with  draft-ietf-tls-psk-new-mac-aes-gcm-05.txt, although
there was not as much discussion.  We plan on  validating consensus in
the Minneapolis meeting. 

    (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 
          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? 

Yes

    (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 split 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? 

The IANA considerations section is correct, no new registries are
created.

    (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 

This document extends RFC 4279, RFC 4492 and RFC 4785, and specifies a
set of cipher suites that use a  pre-shared key (PSK) to authenticate an
Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman exchange (ECDH).  These cipher  suites
provide Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS). 

          Working Group Summary 

In general there was good consensus for the document.  We still have to
validate consensus on supporting  previous versions of TLS (1.0 and 1.1)
with the new cipher suites.  This will be validated in the  Minneapolis
meeting.  

          Document Quality 

Working group members have shown interest in the document.  Alfred
Hoenes has done a through review of  this document for both technical
and editorial content.  
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls