BRSKI-AE: Alternative Enrollment Protocols in BRSKI
draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-13

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: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tte@cs.fau.de
Subject: Protocol Action: 'BRSKI-AE: Alternative Enrollment Protocols in BRSKI' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BRSKI-AE: Alternative Enrollment Protocols in BRSKI'
  (draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-13.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and
Approach Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Mahesh Jethanandani.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document defines an enhancement of Bootstrapping Remote Secure
   Key Infrastructure (BRSKI, RFC 8995).  It supports alternative
   certificate enrollment protocols, such as CMP, that use authenticated
   self-contained signed objects for certification messages.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-ae.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Toerless Eckert. The
   Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

RFC Editor Note