Subject: [Dime] Publication request for Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol; draft-ietf-dime.erp-12

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:18:36 +0300

Dear Secretary,

This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-dime-erp-12 as a standards track RFC. 

- Jouni

-------------------------------------------------------

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

	Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) is to
       be published as a Standards Track RFC, which is indicated in the
       I-D's cover page Intended Status field.

	Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol complements
	the Hokey WG's EAP Re-authentication work and provides the needed
	AAA backend support for both ER servers and EAP servers.

(2) 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

	The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) defines extensions to the
	Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to support efficient re-
	authentication between the peer and an EAP Re-authentication (ER)
	server through a compatible authenticator.  This document specifies
	Diameter support for ERP.  It defines a new Diameter ERP application
	to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the ER
	server, and a set of new AVPs that can be used to transport the
	cryptographic material needed by the re-authentication server.

Working Group Summary

	The I-D has been discussed extensively in the DIME WG and has
       reached the overall working group consensus. The work has been
	done in a cooperation with the Hokey WG that defined the EAP
	Re-authentication Protocol solution.

Document Quality

	There are no publicly announced implementations of the protocol.

Personnel

 Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
 Director?

      Jouni Korhonen ([email-masked]) is the document
      shepherd.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

      The document shepherd has reviewed the document after it has
      concluded the WGLC. The document shepherd thinks the document
      is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

      No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

	The document has yet to be reviewed by the AAA and security
	directorate.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

	The document shepherd has no specific concerns regarding the
	I-D itself. The document shepherd expects that the long lasting
	topic on sensitive information transport, such as key material,
	over Diameter gets discussed again. However, this is a known
	feature of Diameter and its hop-by-hop security properties. The
	existing security considerations should cover this when it
	references to e.g. I-D.ietf-dime-local-keytran.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

       No IPRs have been declared.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

       No IPRs have been declared.

(9) 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 consensus is solid and does not represent only the
       opinion of few individuals.

(10) 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 publicly available.) 

       No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

       The document passes IDnits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

       The document does not define MIBs, media types, URIs etc.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

       Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

       No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure. 

       No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

       No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

	The document only requests for code points and values from an
	existing IANA registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

	None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

	Checked with IDnits and against ietf-dime-rfc3588bis CCF (a
	modified ABNF).