(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard. This is appropriate, since this can be used for Web origins to delegate actions, such as content delivery, to a third party, such as a CDN.
(2) 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:
This memo proposes a profile of the ACME protocol that allows the
owner of an identifier (e.g., a domain name) to delegate to a third
party access to a certificate associated with said identifier. A
primary use case is that of a CDN (the third party) terminating TLS
sessions on behalf of a content provider (the owner of a domain
name). The presented mechanism allows the owner of the identifier to
retain control over the delegation and revoke it at any time by
cancelling the associated STAR certificate renewal with the ACME CA.
Working Group Summary:
This was a pretty quiet draft and did not have much email traffic. Most comments were along the lines of "enh, seems fine." There was no controversy. There were several presentations at F2F IETF meetings over the course of development, and I recall nothing more than clarifications or occasional editorial-level suggestions.
The document is good. There are some nits that can be addressed in IESG review (like copyright year being old, lack of IPv6 examples). It seems quite feasible to implement basic on this document. It should pass any registrar reviews easily. I believe that at least one CDN provider would use this, and there are indications that some commercial CA's would support this, but no commitments. Note that this is a challenge part of ACME, so use/lack-of-use doesn't invalidate use of ACME overall.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Rich Salz (WG co-chair) is the Shepherd and Roman Danyliw is the AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I re-read the document. I looked through IETF meeting slides. I checked the "Nits!" output. I searched the mailing list.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. It serves a particular community, and I believe the authors represent a good portion of that community.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No. JSON over HTTPS.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes; there are none.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(9) 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?
As implied above, the bulk of the WG is "meh, okay" But ACME is a framework for providing challenges to get certificates, and this meets a particular community need, so the level of WG involvement seems fine to me.
(10) 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 publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
As mentioned above, copyright year and IP addresses in examples might need some touch-up.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
It adds some entries to various IANA ACME registries. Should be simple. It adds a column to an existing ACME (RFC 8555) registry.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).
It seems accurate to me.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
In section 5.5:
IANA is requested to establish a registry "STAR Delegation CSR
Template Extensions", with "Expert Review" as its registration
This is consistent with the other ACME registraries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
There are none.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?