Algorithm Agility Procedure for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-12

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    sidr mailing list <sidr@ietf.org>,
    sidr chair <sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Algorithm Agility Procedure for RPKI.' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-12.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Algorithm Agility Procedure for RPKI.'
  (draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-12.txt) as Best Current Practice

This document is the product of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies the process that Certification Authorities
   (CAs) and Relying Parties (RPs) participating in the Resource Public
   Key Infrastructure (RPKI) will need to follow to transition to a new
   (and probably cryptographically stronger) algorithm set.  The process
   is expected to be completed in a time scale of several years.
   Consequently, no emergency transition is specified.  The transition
   procedure defined in this document supports only a top-down migration
   (parent migrates before children).

Working Group Summary

   During WGLC there was some prolonged discussion on whether IETF 
   is the right body for publishing a set of milestones for different phases of 
   algorithm migration and which other entities should be involved (IANA, 
   NROs, etc.). The issue was discussed and the text was improved in this 
   area.

  There was also an extended discussion during WGLC on whether 
  top-down migration is the right way to do algorithm migration. I think 
  the WG still supports this approach.

Document Quality

   This document is not specifying a protocol, so there are no 
   implementations. However considering past history in the 
   Security Area with algorithm migration in different protocols, 
   such migration event is quite likely, if RPKI ends up being 
   used for any significant period of time.


Personnel

   Alexey Melnikov is the Document Shepherd.
   Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director.


RFC Editor Note

 Please change the Intended Status from Proposed Standard to BCP

RFC Editor Note