# Document Shepherd Writeup
*This version is dated 10 October 2022.*
(+additions from the AD)
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The WG consensus is solid.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Several implementors have been integral in developing this document, thus
implementors have indicated interest in implementing this. There is already
at least two interoperable implementations of this specification:
* strongSwan, https://github.com/strongswan/strongswan/tree/ikev2-qske-multi-ke
* ELVIS-PLUS, http://ipsec.elvis.ru/en.html
### Additional Reviews
5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
No. The document has already been reviewed by security area people, and
the cryptographic algorithms are not part of this document, but are documented
separately. In addition reviews from cryptographers have already been received
to the basic protocol.
[Added by AD]
The protocol mechanism has been subject to peer-reviewed, formal verification:
* DOI: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485832.3485885
* Pre-print: https://www.mnm-team.org/pub/Publikationen/gggh21b/PDF-Version/gggh21b.pdf
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None are applicable.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
The document contains no YANG module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
No automated checks are applicable.
### Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
attention from subsequent reviews?
No.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker.
12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
emails.
There is one IPR already submitted, and authors have indicated there is no
other known IPRs to them.
13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
please provide a justification.
Authors have indicated willingness to be listed as such. There are 7 authors
listed, this document is work of group of authors working on different areas,
i.e., some of the authors are experts on the IKEv2, some are concentrated
on the cryptographic primitives, and some more to the post quantum in general.
14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
guidelines document.
Idnits reports few false positive warnings.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
References are split properly to normative and informative.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are now RFCs.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
[BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
No.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
plan for their completion?
No.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This document will update RFC7296 (changes some IANA registry names, and some
fields names to more generic form).
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).
IANA allocations are ok. Note, that one of the authors and shepherd are
IANA experts associated with the registries to be modified.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
This does not create any new registries, it will rename one old registry
and will change name of items in one registry. In addition to that it
adds new values to 4 different ikev2 registry.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
