Document Writeup, template from IESG area on ietf.org, dated August 10, 2017.
(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?
Standards Track. The document defines a strategy to securely assign
a pledge to an owner, using an artifact signed, directly or indirectly,
by the pledge's manufacturer.
(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:
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
This document defines a strategy to securely assign a pledge to an
owner, using an artifact signed, directly or indirectly, by the
pledge's manufacturer. This artifact is known as a "voucher". This
document only defines the voucher artifact, leaving it to other
documents to describe specialized protocols for accessing it.
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-kwatsen-anima-voucher prior to its
adoption. There was unanimous support for it in favor of adoption and
none against), so this document was adopted in January, 2017, as a
accompanying document along with another ANIMA WG document
draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra, which have been adopted in
Auguest 2015. It is worthy to clarifying that this document is actually
independent from draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra. There was
interest in this work posts since its adoption. There was never any
opposition for this work.
This document went through a relevant shorter document development
period (3 months for individual document period, 8 month for WG
document period). It has been reviewed well.
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
This document went through multiple reviews by multiple WGs (ANIMA,
6tisch, NETCONF) participants. And this document went through a
cross-group WGLC, which did receive comments to help improving the
document. So far, there is no existing implementations.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Sheng Jiang is the document shepherd.
Terry Manderson 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 for -02 versions (and had
other minor comments from time to time):
The issues raised in my reviews were promptly addressed by authors
in -03 version along with the comments from other ANIMA WG members.
This document -05 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?
(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.
(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, Kent Watsen, Michael C. Richardson, Max Pritikin and
Toerless Eckert 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.
(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
(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
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
(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?
No. All normative references are published RFCs.
(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
Yes. There are one downard normative references. Normative reference to
an Informational RFC - RFC 2315, "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax
Version 1.5", which is already in the downref registry
(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 asked to registers a URIs in the IETF XML registry:
IANA is requested to registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
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.
The YANG module has been checked using pyang v1.7.3 abd yanglint 0.12.193.