(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
==> Alan DeKok.
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?
==> Yes, and yes.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members?
==> Yes
Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
==> No.
(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?
==> It may be useful to have a review from someone in the security
community who has not been involved in the document development.
(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?
==> No.
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?
==> No.
If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.
(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 consensus shows strong consensus from a number of individuals.
The WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
==> No one has threatened an appeal.
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.)
(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?
==> Yes. The ID Nits are:
1) uses RFC 2119 text without RFC 2119 template. This is
intentional, and explained in the document
2) Using non-RFC3330 compliant IP addresses. This appears
to be a "false positive", as the document does not use
example IP addresses.
There are no other reviews necessary.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
==> Yes.
Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state?
==> Yes. The document depends on draft-ietf-emu-chbind.
If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion?
==> The channel bindings document is expected to to be published
before any tunnel method document.
As a result, there appears to be no issue with publishing the
tunnel requirements document now.
Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?
==> No.
If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?
==> Yes. There are no IANA considerations.
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?
(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?
==> This is 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 memo defines the requirements for a tunnel-based Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Method. This method will use Transport
Layer Security (TLS) to establish a secure tunnel. The tunnel will
provide support for password authentication, EAP authentication and
the transport of additional data for other purposes.
Working Group Summary
The document has had substantial review from a number of working
group participants. The working group is ready to start working on
protocols.
Document Quality
The document is a requirements document that has had contributions
from Working group participants from different vendors. Discussion
in the Working group has resulted in improvements to the document.
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
