Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

## 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 good consensus within the design team, however, no feedback came back
when asking the WG mailing list:

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy observed nor known.

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 discontent was indicated.

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

There are 2 implementations of JWS Voucher that are part of the BRSKI and
BRSKI-PRM solutions of Siemens:
* Java for MASA, Registrar, and (unconstrained) Pledge
* C for Pledge
The implementations were developed by different persons and cross-tested for
correctness and interoperability.
The code is not open source; it is company inner source.
Furthermore, there is a RUST implementation of JWS Voucher currently
underdevelopment by another group, however, also closed source.
As the implementations are not (yet) open source, there is no "Implementation
Status" section in the document itself.

## 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.

It uses RFC7515 (JWS) of the JOSE WG in a straight-forward manner, so that the
shepherd sees no need for a review.

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.

Media type is the only formal review criteria and the authors confirmed to
request a review from mediaman (document in open issue #7).

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.
(It uses the YANG module defined in I-D.draft-ietf-anima-RFC8366bis without any

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 document uses pseudo-JSON to illustrate the definitions, which were reviewed
and improved to align with the definitions given in RFC7515 (JWS).
Consulting a number of mailing lists yielded no better proposal and the shepherd
thinks the current solution is very clear for implementers.

The JWS examples in the appendix were checked with Base64 and DER tools and are
correctly parsable.
An implementation note was added, as some examples use the optional escaping of
slashes for the JSON strings, which however, is RFC8259-compliant.

## 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 close a gap in the overall BRSKI framework for
environments that make use of the wide-spread JWS format for signed JSON data.

The document is clear and concise, and well aligned with the underlying JWS RFC.
I believe the document is ready.

Note, there are TODO markers in the document intended for the RFC Editor:
- 2 for special references to I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis that
  need the effective plain RFC number (Updates header, abstract)
- 2 for confirming the IANA registration of "voucher-jws+json"
  or updating to the effective media type
- 1 for "THIS RFC" in IANA Considerations section

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

(Instructions unclear.)
The shepherds expertise can and did cover the topics listed for:
The topics from the following areas seem not applicable:
- SEC (in the sense that the document has a very specific, small scope)

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 an additional format for the BRSKI
Voucher Artifact (RFC8366), 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 on the authors' mailing list 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.

There are 2 authors only.

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][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits 2.17.1

-(601): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii
characters in UTF-8 encoding

This is indeed UTF-8 encoding, 'ü' in Kühlewind as used in existing RFCs.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to
  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.

See above (Kühlewind).

  Checking nits according to :
  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8366, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8366
     though, so this could be OK.

This is an RFC Editor TODO, as the special header reference must point to the
effective RFC number for I-D.draft-ietf-anima-RFC8366bis (number only).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 312, but not defined

This is an RFC Editor TODO (in IANA registration).

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

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


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.


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, however, they are planned as cluster together
with other 8366bis updates/extensions such as

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.

No changes to existing RFCs.
I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis should be published with "Updated by" in the
"See Also" category, if I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag will be ready for this.

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 IANA considerations contain a Media-Type Registry registration for
"application/voucher-jws+json", which identifies the representation format
defined in the document.
No other registration needs are apparent in the body of the document.

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.