Please publish draft-ietf-emu-chbind-13.txt as an Proposed Standard RFC. The
Proto write-up is included below.
Thanks,
Joe
(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?
Joe Salowey, EMU working group co-chair, is the Working Group Shepherd for this
document. The shepherd has reviewed the current version and believes 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 review from both key Working Group and Non-working group
members. This includes members of the ABFAB community which relies upon 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?
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.
The document shepherd does not have concerns with the document and believes the
document is needed. There has been no IPR disclosure related to the 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?
The document has strong consensus within the working group. However, there is
an individual who is not happy with the document, but has not posted comments
on the latest revisions to the list. The working group and chairs feel it is
appropriate to send the document to the IESG so additional comments can be made
in IETF Last Call.
(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 an appeal. See previous section.
(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 passes ID-nits. There are a few reference issues that can be
resolved in the editing process.
(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 references are complete.
(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 complete.
(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 defines how to implement channel bindings for
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) methods to address the lying
NAS as well as the lying provider problem.
Working Group Summary
This document has had extensive review in the EMU working group.
The document has clear applicability in ABFAB and Network Access use
cases.
Document Quality
Project Moonshot, an ABFAB implementation, is working on an
implementation of this document.
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
