Folks,
I've just requested the publication of the legacy
applications draft.
Below you can find its PROTO write-up.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
(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 Gonzalo
Camarillo, who has
personally reviewed this draft and believes it is read 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?
Yes, the document has been adequately reviewed.
(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?
It represents the strong concurrence of all active WG
participants.
(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?
This draft was checked with Version: 2.04.07 of the ID nits
tool.
(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 only has Informative 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?
The document has a null IANA Considerations section.
(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?
The document does not use 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 Host Identity Protocol (HIP) and architecture
proposes to add a
cryptographic name space for network stack names. From
an
application viewpoint, HIP-enabled systems support a new
address
family of host identifiers, but it may be a long time
until such HIP-
aware applications are widely deployed even if host
systems are
upgraded. This informational document discusses
implementation and
API issues relating to using HIP in situations in which
the system is
HIP-aware but the applications are not.
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?
No.
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?
This document is based on the experiences of several HIP
implementors.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this
document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Gonzalo Camarillo
AD: Mark Townsley
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec lists.ietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
|