BRSKI Cloud Registrar
draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-20
|
08 | Liz Flynn | Shepherding AD changed to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2024-02-02
|
08 | Robert Wilton | Also need to check with Toerless that his review comments on -08 have been combined/resolved in -09. |
2024-01-19
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Robert Wilton, Owen Friel, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef, Michael Richardson (IESG state changed) |
2024-01-19
|
08 | Robert Wilton | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2023-12-10
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated August 10, 2017. draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-08 write-up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed … Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated August 10, 2017. draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-08 write-up (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? Standards Track. Based on the existing BRSKI infrastructure. This document defines a new BRSKI-enabled device behaviour: if no local infrastructure is available, the device can use a well defined "call-home" mechanism to find the operator maintained BRSKI infrastructure. This document defines a mechanism how the new device can contact a well-known Cloud Registrar, and two ways in which the new device may be redirected towards the operator maintained infrastructure. (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: 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. This document defines a new BRSKI-enabled device behaviour with the existing BRSKI infrastructure: if no local infrastructure is available, the device can use a well defined "call-home" mechanism to find the operator maintained BRSKI infrastructure. Tis document defines a mechanism how the new device can contact a well-known Cloud Registrar, and two ways in which the new device may be redirected towards the operator maintained infrastructure. 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 was called draft-friel-anima-brski-cloud prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in May, 2021. It is a follow-up document of RFC8995 "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)", which published May 2021. There was interest in this work posts since its adoption. There was never any opposition for this work. This document went through a relevant long document development period (20 months for individual document period, 31 month for WG document period). It is partly because of global COVID-19 and slow process of its prior dependent document and parallel brother documents. 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? This document went through multiple reviews by ANIMA WG participants, which did receive comments to help improving the document. So far, there is no existing implementations. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Sheng Jiang is the document shepherd. Robert Wilton is the responsible 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 reviewed this document thorough once (and had other minor comments from time to time) and feed back my comments to the authors The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors in the current version along with the comments from other ANIMA WG members. This document current -08 version is ready for publication in my opinion. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. There are no outstanding issues. (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. The authors, O. Friel, R. Shekh-Yusef and Michael C. Richardson have confirmed in writing that they are not aware of any IPR, and that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? There was broad support for this document. It was reviewed by active WG participants. (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.) No. There was unanimous support for this work and nobody raised any objections. (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. This document is now ID nits clean. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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? Yes. draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs (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. No. (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. No. This document does not update any existing RFCs. (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 5226). No. This document makes no IANA requests. (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. No such registry is requested in this document. (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, etc. No, this document does not request any such checks. |
2023-12-10
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | Responsible AD changed to Robert Wilton |
2023-12-10
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-12-10
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-12-10
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-12-10
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated August 10, 2017. draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-08 write-up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed … Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated August 10, 2017. draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-08 write-up (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? Standards Track. Based on the existing BRSKI infrastructure. This document defines a new BRSKI-enabled device behaviour: if no local infrastructure is available, the device can use a well defined "call-home" mechanism to find the operator maintained BRSKI infrastructure. This document defines a mechanism how the new device can contact a well-known Cloud Registrar, and two ways in which the new device may be redirected towards the operator maintained infrastructure. (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: 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. This document defines a new BRSKI-enabled device behaviour with the existing BRSKI infrastructure: if no local infrastructure is available, the device can use a well defined "call-home" mechanism to find the operator maintained BRSKI infrastructure. Tis document defines a mechanism how the new device can contact a well-known Cloud Registrar, and two ways in which the new device may be redirected towards the operator maintained infrastructure. 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 was called draft-friel-anima-brski-cloud prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in May, 2021. It is a follow-up document of RFC8995 "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)", which published May 2021. There was interest in this work posts since its adoption. There was never any opposition for this work. This document went through a relevant long document development period (20 months for individual document period, 31 month for WG document period). It is partly because of global COVID-19 and slow process of its prior dependent document and parallel brother documents. 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? This document went through multiple reviews by ANIMA WG participants, which did receive comments to help improving the document. So far, there is no existing implementations. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Sheng Jiang is the document shepherd. Robert Wilton is the responsible 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 reviewed this document thorough once (and had other minor comments from time to time) and feed back my comments to the authors The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors in the current version along with the comments from other ANIMA WG members. This document current -08 version is ready for publication in my opinion. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. There are no outstanding issues. (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. The authors, O. Friel, R. Shekh-Yusef and Michael C. Richardson have confirmed in writing that they are not aware of any IPR, and that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? There was broad support for this document. It was reviewed by active WG participants. (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.) No. There was unanimous support for this work and nobody raised any objections. (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. This document is now ID nits clean. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No MIB Doctor, media type, URI type or similar apply to this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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? Yes. draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs (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. No. (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. No. This document does not update any existing RFCs. (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 5226). No. This document makes no IANA requests. (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. No such registry is requested in this document. (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, etc. No, this document does not request any such checks. |
2023-11-07
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Notification list changed to shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn from jiangsheng@huawei.com, shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn |
2023-10-02
|
08 | Toerless Eckert | Notification list changed to jiangsheng@huawei.com, shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn from jiangsheng@huawei.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-10-02
|
08 | Toerless Eckert | Document shepherd changed to Sheng Jiang |
2023-10-02
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2023-10-02
|
08 | Sheng Jiang | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2023-08-24
|
08 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-08.txt |
2023-08-24
|
08 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2023-08-24
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2023-08-24
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-01
|
07 | Toerless Eckert | This document was put into WGLC Nov 2022, but state change in data tracker was missed, authors think all issues raised in Jul 2023, waiting … This document was put into WGLC Nov 2022, but state change in data tracker was missed, authors think all issues raised in Jul 2023, waiting for ok. from last issue raiser (Esko). |
2023-08-01
|
07 | Toerless Eckert | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-07.txt |
2023-07-26
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-07-26
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-17
|
06 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-06.txt |
2023-05-17
|
06 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2023-05-17
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2023-05-17
|
06 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-13
|
05 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-05.txt |
2022-11-13
|
05 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | New version approved |
2022-11-13
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2022-11-13
|
05 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-24
|
04 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-04.txt |
2022-05-24
|
04 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2022-05-24
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2022-05-24
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-11
|
03 | Toerless Eckert | Added to session: IETF-113: anima Fri-1230 |
2022-03-06
|
03 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-03.txt |
2022-03-06
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-06
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2022-03-06
|
03 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-11-21
|
02 | Sheng Jiang | Notification list changed to jiangsheng@huawei.com because the document shepherd was set |
2021-11-21
|
02 | Sheng Jiang | Document shepherd changed to Sheng Jiang |
2021-10-17
|
02 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-02.txt |
2021-10-17
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-17
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2021-10-17
|
02 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-11
|
01 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-01.txt |
2021-07-11
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-11
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2021-07-11
|
01 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-05-17
|
00 | Sheng Jiang | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2021-05-17
|
00 | Sheng Jiang | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2021-05-17
|
00 | Sheng Jiang | This document now replaces draft-friel-anima-brski-cloud instead of None |
2021-04-28
|
00 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-00.txt |
2021-04-28
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-04-28
|
00 | Michael Richardson | Set submitter to "Michael Richardson ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: anima-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-04-28
|
00 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |