Join Proxy for Bootstrapping of Constrained Network Elements
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-15

Pulling back into WG last-call state given how document needs further WG last-call review and updates.
Currently, document does not show up in WG datatracker list for ANIMA, which may be related to this state, or to wrong IESG state.

Chairs forgot to update WG state to last call in September 2022. Fixing now.
Document held in WG for some inter dependency issues with YANG and discovery work for BRSKI.

From the designated expert for Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values:

I looked at the registration requests in the draft.
They use somewhat unusual language about discovering ports - resource discovery is understood to discover resources. For brski.jp, this appears to be about discovering a CoAP or CoAPs entry point (without describing how exactly that is then used, e.g., what happens if that has a different IP address in the authority than the request address). For brski.rjp, this appears to be about discovering an entry point for a protocol that I don’t seem to fully understand the description for.

I didn’t try to obtain a deep understanding of the protocol before writing this, but I would prefer if the language used for the description were understandable for other registrants in this registry, i.e., discussing resources, not ports (port numbers?).

All the other criteria for a registration appear to be fulfilled.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values registry on the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: brski.jp
Description: This BRSKI resource type is used to query and return the supported BRSKI (CoAP over DTLS) port of the constrained Join Proxy.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Value: brski-rjp
Description: This BRSKI resource type is used to query and return the supported BRSKI JPY protocol port of the Registrar.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers

two service name registrations are to be made as follows:

Service Name: brski-jp
Transport Protocol(s): udp
Assignee:  IESG
Contact:  IESG
Description: Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure constrained Join Proxy
Reference: [this document]

Service Name: brski-rjp
Transport Protocol(s): udp
Assignee:  IESG
Contact:  IESG
Description: Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure
Registrar join-port used by stateless constrained Join Proxy
Reference: [this document]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-04-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy@ietf.org, jiangsheng@huawei.com, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Autonomic Networking Integrated
Model and Approach WG (anima) to consider the following document: -
'Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-04-08. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a protocol to securely assign a Pledge to a
  domain, represented by a Registrar, using an intermediary node
  between Pledge and Registrar.  This intermediary node is known as a
  "constrained Join Proxy".  An enrolled Pledge can act as a
  constrained Join Proxy.

  This document extends the work of Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
  Infrastructures (BRSKI) by replacing the Circuit-proxy between Pledge
  and Registrar by a stateless/stateful constrained Join Proxy.  It
  relays join traffic from the Pledge to the Registrar.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, consistent with RFC 4858, dated February 25, 2022.

draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-06 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?

  Proposed Standard.  The document defines a protocol to securely assign a
  Pledge to a domain, represented by a Registrar, using an intermediary
  node between Pledge and Registrar. The type of RFC is clearly
  indicated in the title page header.
 
(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 protocol to securely assign a Pledge to a
  domain, represented by a Registrar, using an intermediary node
  between Pledge and Registrar. It extends the work of BRSKI (RFC8995) by
  replacing the Circuit-proxy between Pledge and Registrar by a
  stateless/stateful constrained Join Proxy.

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-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy
  prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of
  adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in November
  2020. 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 (22 months for individual document period, 15 months for WG
  document period). It has been reviewed well.

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 multiple WG
  participants.  For now, there is no known existing implementation.

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.
 
  The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors
  along with the comments from other ANIMA WG members.  This document -06
  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, M. Richardson, P. van der Stok and P. Kampanakis 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. All changes were mostly minor.
 
(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?

  There are two normative references that have not been published yet.
  ietf-ace-coap-est is in AUTH48-DONE status since 2021-08.
  ietf-anima-constrained-voucher is close to complete the WG stage.
 
(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.

  ieee802-1AR from IEEE seems be downward reference.

(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).

  IANA is requested to register two new Resource Type Link Target
  Attributes: brski.jp and brski.rjp.

  IANA is requested to register two new service names: brski-jp and
  brski-rjp.

  All the necessary information is in the IANA considerations document.
  It is clear enough that the IANA will be able to implement it.
 
(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.

  There are no such parts to the document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  This document does NOT contain any YANG module.

Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, consistent with RFC 4858, dated February 25, 2022.

draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-06 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?

  Proposed Standard.  The document defines a protocol to securely assign a
  Pledge to a domain, represented by a Registrar, using an intermediary
  node between Pledge and Registrar. The type of RFC is clearly
  indicated in the title page header.
 
(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 protocol to securely assign a Pledge to a
  domain, represented by a Registrar, using an intermediary node
  between Pledge and Registrar. It extends the work of BRSKI (RFC8995) by
  replacing the Circuit-proxy between Pledge and Registrar by a
  stateless/stateful constrained Join Proxy.

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-vanderstok-anima-constrained-join-proxy
  prior to its adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of
  adoption and none against), so this document was adopted in November
  2020. 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 (22 months for individual document period, 15 months for WG
  document period). It has been reviewed well.

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 multiple WG
  participants.  For now, there is no known existing implementation.

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.
 
  The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors
  along with the comments from other ANIMA WG members.  This document -06
  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, M. Richardson, P. van der Stok and P. Kampanakis 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. All changes were mostly minor.
 
(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?

  There are two normative references that have not been published yet.
  ietf-ace-coap-est is in AUTH48-DONE status since 2021-08.
  ietf-anima-constrained-voucher is close to complete the WG stage.
 
(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.

  ieee802-1AR from IEEE seems be downward reference.

(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).

  IANA is requested to register two new Resource Type Link Target
  Attributes: brski.jp and brski.rjp.

  IANA is requested to register two new service names: brski-jp and
  brski-rjp.

  All the necessary information is in the IANA considerations document.
  It is clear enough that the IANA will be able to implement it.
 
(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.

  There are no such parts to the document.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  This document does NOT contain any YANG module.