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.