# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This template version is dated 4 July 2022.*
The shepherd review was conducted on draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-14.
## 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?
There is broad agreement among the active WG participants, in particular the
design team. There are others being silent, but no opponents.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
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)?
There is an open-source implementation by the Munich University of Applied
Sciences. The code is available at https://github.com/hm-edu/open-brski under
MIT license (the repo may move for organizational reasons, but a forwarder
was requested).
- Rust for MASA, Registrar, and Pledge; Dart for Registrar-Agent
There are two company inner source implementations of BRSKI-PRM by Siemens,
developed by different persons and cross-tested for correctness and
interoperability.
- Java for MASA, Registrar, and (unconstrained) Pledge
- C for Pledge
## 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.
There is only off-the-shelf use of other technologies, so that a review is
not necessary.
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.
All YANG definitions were moved to ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, hence YANGDOCTORS
early reviews on Datatracker should be updated or removed.
IOTDIR and SECDIR early reviews are recommended to follow up with a new review
after the major improvements of the document structure.
IANA review for the BRSKI .well-known Registry additions and the DNS Service
Name registration is missing.
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]?
No YANG module is contained.
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.
The CDDL definitions were reviewed by Carsten Bormann and checked with
cddl-gen.
## 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 document is needed to address real-world (industrial) use cases of BRSKI
that require a workflow different from the one defined in RFC8995.
The document has been correctly designed and is now clearly written.
It is ready, but part of and aligned with the RFC8366bis cluster.
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?
They were checked and discussed for the following areas:
- ART
- SEC
- TSV
The topics from the following areas are considered not applicable:
- INT
- OPS
- RTG
One issue was identified by the shepherd:
TSV "Using _tcp and _udp in SRV DNS records"
The document provides a basic discovery mechanism following the approach of
BRSKI [RFC8995] and registers the service name "brski-pledge" for _tcp.
Since the document defines a transport-agnostic protocol, with HTTP(S) just as
default transport, it should be clarified who shall register "brski-pledge"
for _udp.
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?
The requested status is "Standard Track", which is correctly documented in the
document header and the Datatracker attribute is "Proposed Standard".
This is appropriate as the document defines a new protocol, which must be
interoperable.
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.
Authors recently confirmed e-mail that they are not aware of any IPR.
13. 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.
There are 4 authors.
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.)
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-14.txt
== There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
Umlaut in lastname within Acknowledgements -- appears to be allowed.
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
document.
This appears to be the example for "_brski-pledge._tcp.local".
The idnits tool seems to be lacking support for DNS-SD constructs.
-- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
'<CODE ENDS>' lines.
Unclear if this still holds for HTML RFCs with language-annotated Markdown
listings. I assume this to be addressed in the RFC Editor pass together with
'THISRFC'.
Note that the HTML version of the idnits tool does not render "<CODE BEGINS>",
so it was only noticed now through the datatracker link to the text version.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No, all references were checked with [16] in mind.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A
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.
N/A
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?
- I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis
- I-D.draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher
- I-D.ietf-netconf-sztp-csr
The first two are planned as cluster together with other 8366bis work such as
I-D.ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.
The last, I-D.ietf-netconf-sztp-csr, needs coordination at AD level.
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.
N/A
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]).
The registrations are consistent with the body of the document.
The existing "BRSKI Well-Known URIs" IANA Registry is clearly referenced.
The DNS Service Name registration is assumed to be checked in the IESG review.
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.
N/A
[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/