Subject: [anonsec] draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic submitted to IESG

From: julien.IETF at laposte.net (Julien Laganier)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:47:54 +0200

Folks,

The following document has been submitted to IESG for 
publication as an Informational RFC:

Problem and Applicability Statement  
for Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS)                   

draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-05.txt 

Attached is the Document Shepherd Write-up that was 
attached to the submission.

Best,

-- Julien & Love,
   BTNS Chairs.
-------------- next part --------------
   (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 for this document is Julien Laganier, BTNS co-chair, who
reviewed this version of the document and believes this version is ready for
forwarding to the IESG.

   (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?

Yes, the document had review from both inside and outside the WG.

   (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.

No.

   (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 WG is behind this document.

   (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].

Yes (The document has no normative 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 [RFC2434].  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?

Yes (The document has no IANA considerations).

   (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?

Yes (The document does not contain formal language).

   (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
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

The Internet network security protocol suite, IPsec, consisting of
IKE, ESP, and AH, generally requires authentication of network layer
entities to bootstrap security. This authentication can be based on
mechanisms such as pre-shared symmetric keys, certificates and
associated asymmetric keys, or the use of Kerberos.  The need to
deploy authentication information and its associated identities to
network layer entities can be a significant obstacle to use of
network security.  This document explains the rationale for extending
the Internet network security suite to enable use of IPsec security
mechanisms without authentication. These extensions are intended to
protect communication in a "better than nothing" (BTNS) fashion. The
extensions may be used on their own (Stand Alone BTNS, or SAB), or
may be useful in providing network layer security that can be
authenticated by higher layers in the protocol stack, called Channel
Bound BTNS (CBB). This document also explains situations in which use
of SAB and CBB extensions are appropriate.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
             example, was there controversy about particular points or
             were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
             rough?

This document is a product of the Better Than Nothing Security (BTNS) working
group.

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             review, on what date was the request posted?

No.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?

The Document Shepherd for this document is Julien Laganier (BTNS co-chair)
and the Responsible Area Director is Sam Hartman.