Subject: [Syslog] Near Final Shepherding Document for draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:12:33 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

Please review this and the latest version of the document.  Send in any 
comments very soon as we would like to submit this to the IESG by Friday.
If I don't hear anything, then this will become the final shepherding 
document.

Thanks,
Chris

===
Having passed a WG Last Call, draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt is
ready for AD review.

[Area] SECURITY
[WG]   syslog
[I-D]  draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt
[Shep] Chris Lonvick <clonvick at cisco.com>

===
    (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?
Chris Lonvick <clonvick at cisco.com>
Yes; I believe that the document 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?

Adequate review has occurred from WG members, and it has been reviewed
by others.  The reviews of the WG Last Call for this document (-03
version) may be found here:

Bert Wijnen's review (not a member of the WG mailing list)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01244.html

John Calcote's review
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01199.html

Other reviews of particular sections and concepts fill the WG mailing
list.  Of note is Eric Rescorla's review (of -02)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01100.html

The issues raised in these reviews have been discussed on the mailing
list and most of them were fixed in version -04.  A very few minor issues
were also addressed from that which resulted in vresion -05.  I am
satisfied about the level of review.
===
    (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?

I have no concerns.
===
    (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.

There are no concerns about the technical merit of 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?

There is strong consensus to publish 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 appeals have been threatened.
===
    (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?

Normative reference [3] is not used in the document.  This reference will
be dropped by the RFC Editor during AUTH48.

There is an extraneous blank line in the Acknowlegements section which
will be removed during AUTH48.
===
    (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 split into normative and informational references.
The document is dependant upon draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-19.txt which
is being submitted along with this document.
===
    (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 suggested a
           reasonable name for the new registry?  See
           [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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 IANA section is complete.  No registries are requested.
===
    (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 ABNF in the document has been verified through
  http://www.apps.ietf.org/abnf.html
===
    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Writeup?  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.

    This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to
    provide a secure connection for the transport of syslog messages.
    This document describes the security threats to Syslog and how TLS
    can be used to counter such threats.

           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?

There was controversy around the IPR statement from Huawei from this
document. The Working Group examined the issue and came to consensus
that the statement would be accepted.

There was some controversy around the use of a special character to denote
the end of the payload, or a counter at the start of the payload to
indicate the length of the payload. The Working Group has consent that a
counter is the best mechanism.

           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 protocol has very similar characteristics to implementations of
syslog over ssl that are available at this time. Members of the Working
Group have noted that it should be a very small change to bring those
implementations in line with this specification.

No vendors have announced that they will utilize this protocol. Some
vendors have indicated interest in supporting this document.  A group
of university researchers have implemented this protocol and found that
it is practicable.

The above named reviewers did an outstanding and thorough job.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?
[Area] SECURITY
[WG] syslog
[I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt
[Shep] Chris Lonvick <clonvick at cisco.com>
[AD] Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
===

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:31:17 +0100

Chris

I would say that there was controversy about the use of ports and that that
should be reflected in the shepherding document.  I would not be surprised to
see this
issue come up in IETF Last Call and it would be better to show that we had at
least considered it.  Something along the lines of

"There was also some controversy about the use of a dedicated port for this,
initial version of syslog over TLS; the consensus was that a dedicated port
should be requested and that there should be no indication of version with the
consequence that any future change to the protocol might require a different
port number."

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Near Final Shepherding Document
fordraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:47:09 -0800 (PST)

Hi Tom,

Noted.  I'll add that and should have a new shepherding document out later 
today.

Thanks,
Chris