Folks,
This document has been submitted to IESG for
publication as proposed standard. Attached is the
publication request's write-up.
-- julien / BTNS co-chair
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 21:50,
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Better-Than-Nothing
Security Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Better-Than-Nothing-Security: An
Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec Author(s) : M.
Richardson, N. Williams
Filename : draft-ietf-btns-core-03.txt
Pages : 15
Date : 2007-5-16
This document specifies how to use the Internet Key
Exchange (IKE) protocols, such as IKEv1 and IKEv2,
to setup "unauthenticated" security associations
(SAs) for use with the IPsec Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) and the IPsec Authentication Header
(AH). No IKE extensions are needed, but Peer
Authorization Database (PAD) and Security Policy
Database (SPD) extensions are specified.
Unauthenticated IPsec is herein referred to by its
popular acronym, "BTNS" (Better Than Nothing
Security).
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-btns-
core-03.txt
To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list,
send a message to i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with
the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.
You can also visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP.
Login with the username "anonymous" and a password
of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd
internet-drafts" and then "get
draft-ietf-btns-core-03.txt".
A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found
in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
mailserv at ietf.org.
"FILE
/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-btns-core-03.txt".
NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the
document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack"
utility. To use this feature, insert the command
"ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To
decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a
MIME-compliant mail reader. Different
MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different
behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart"
MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
up into multiple messages), so check your local
documentation on how to manipulate these messages.
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant
mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve
the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft.
-------------- 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 WG co-chair).
The Responsible Area Director is Sam Hartman (Security Area Director).