Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## 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?

This document has good good consensus by all active WG members involved in BRSKI.
There where no dissenting opinions raised.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

This document did evolve significantly and beneficially over the course of its life in the WG
through the input and work by WG members. See list of acknowledgements in the document. The
Shepherd does not think that any consensus on issues was ever rough though.

Mayor changes involved renaming/refocussing from "async" enrolment (which is still
a key, but not the only target benefit) over to "alternative" enrolments with
signed standalone message seucrity or when revisiting the part of the discovery mechanism to remove
more advanced mechanisms into a future document as they may take longer to finish.
All changes where resolved without without disagreements in the WG.

The document issues raised and resolved can be seen in the github:

  https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-ae/issues

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)?

From David.von.Oheimb@siemens.com:
  Siemens has non-public implementations for the CMP instance of BRSKI-AE,
  for both the pledge and registrar side, in C and Java.
  These have been used as a PoC and for interop testing.    

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

This work closely depends on the work by the same co-authors in LAMPS, RFC9483.
Coordination with that WG was through the co-authors. Aka: this draft is to a good
extend an application of RFC9483 and RFC9483 was shaped by the needs of BRSKI-AE
as a subset of CMP.

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.

This document does not contain any formal languages anymore after one reorg of
document content in the ANIMA WG which moved all YANG into draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis
(because YAND didn't allow us to partition ourmodel across multiple BRSKI extension
documents including BRSKI-AE).  The YANGDOCTORS early review for BRSKI-AE (red) 
was therefore updated by a last call review to ensure it is clear that the red early
review is not applicable anymore.

The document does not include any other formal definitions requiring review other
than one IANA request for a service name.

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]?

NA. (see above).

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.

NA. (see above).

## 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?

The Shepherd did his final WGLC review against rev -08, see:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/QyEq3iB_GsYHO84b1bXpXLADCqg

-09 does resolve all remaining issue of that review and all other issues WGLC
raised against the document by WG members had also been closed on before.

The Shepherd thinks this work is needed for the use cases it addresses, clearly written,
complete, corectly designed and ready to be handed off to the responsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The Shepherd has looked through [6], and think that all the typical aspects mentioned
that are touched by this document, especially the security aspects are well reviewed,
as also shown by SECIDR Last Call review. 

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Requested RFC publication type: Proposed Standard.
This is correctly reflected by Datatracker.

This document defines the protocol extension of BRSKI (RFC8995) to support the
CMP by using it's lightweight profile defined in RFC9483. This spec therefore describes
mechanim requiring interoperability between a number of parties (pledge, registrar,
possibly further transport entities and RA/CA).

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. An IPR call was made to the WG mailing list during WGLC. All authors confirmed
that they are not aware of any IPR for which disclosures have not yet been filed.
Note: no disclosures have been filed according to Datatracker.

14. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, each author/editor confirmed willingness to be named as such.

Total number of authors is 3.

The shepherd thinks that the sole listed contributor 'Eliot Lear' is fine to be listed
as such from prior communications, but has sent a reconfirming query to Eliot during this
Shepherd writeup. If the reply should be negative, the Shepherd will make sure his mentioning
is fixed in the next revision of the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

After re-running IDNITS one oversight was found.
The document should put a reference against [RFC8366] after the first mentioning 
of the word Voucher. This has been opened as an issue on github and will be fixed
on the next revision of the document.

All the formal requirements from the Content Guidelines are met in the understanding of
the Shepherd.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The Shepherd is not sure if 802.1AE does necessarily have to be listed as normative
(instead of informative) given how it is primarily used as a reference for terminology which 
has been used in prior IETF PKI related  security RFCs without similar degree of due diligence
of origin referencing. However, the decision to make it normative was not challenged by
SECDIR Last Call review and the document is also freely available from IEEE, so the
Shepherd has no concerns with the choice.

All other normative and informative reference do well match the way they are referenced by
the document.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

NA.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, 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.

No.

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][11]).

In the understanding of the Shepherd, the IANA section is complete and consistent
with the content of the document. There is only the registration of one new
service-name for BRSKI Registrars with CMP support.

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.

NA.

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Back