Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) Cloud Registrar
draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-19

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-cloud@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) Cloud Registrar' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-19.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) Cloud Registrar'
  (draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-19.txt) as Proposed Standard

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

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

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

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures defines how to
   onboard a device securely into an operator-maintained infrastructure.
   It assumes that there is local network infrastructure for the device
   to discover and help the device.  This document extends the new
   device behavior so that if no local infrastructure is available, such
   as in a home or remote office, the device can use a well-defined
   "call-home" mechanism to find the operator-maintained infrastructure.

   This document defines how to contact a well-known Cloud Registrar,
   and two ways in which the new device may be redirected towards the
   operator-maintained infrastructure.  The Cloud Registrar enables
   discovery of the operator-maintained infrastructure, and may enable
   establishment of trust with operator-maintained infrastructure that
   does not support BRSKI mechanisms.

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? 

From Shepherds Review:
  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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Sheng Jiang. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

From Shepherds Report:
  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. 

IANA Note

  This document makes no IANA requests.

RFC Editor Note