# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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?
The document reached a broad consensus, comparable to that of many other
documents in the COSE WG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
A controversy arose during IETF 122 regarding "natively signed" certificates
and their evolution. However, the issue appears to have been resolved through
discussion on the mailing list, as there was no further follow-up by the end of
the WGLC.
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)?
A demonstration implementation is available at
https://github.com/cose-wg/CBOR-certificates/tree/master/c509_demo_impl, and a
link to this repository is included in the document. However, the document does
not explicitly mention this implementation. The authors have suggested that
there are also implementations by Lijun Liao <lijun.liao@gmail.com> and Brian
Sipos. Derek Atkins derek@ihtfp.com also seems to indicate that they have an
implementation in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/dF30vuqIcKFJw2HIT6Q7T7aj_sI/.
## 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.
I am not aware of any.
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.
The media type has not undergone a special review, as the registrations are
straightforward and the working group possesses expertise in this area.
All other types of reviews seem irrelevant for this document.
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]?
There is no YANG module.
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 in Figure 2 was successfully verified using the tool at
https://christian-bromann.github.io/cddl/. However, the CDDL in Figures 1 and 4
produced errors that appear to be tool-related.
## 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?
Yes, the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.
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?
In my opinion the draft does not have any of the listed SEC issues. Many of
them are not relevant for this draft or are addressed by documents on x.509,
which the draft builds on.
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?
Proposed Standard
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.
Yes.
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.
Each author has shown willingness to be listed as such and the list is of
exactly 5 people.
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.)
Idnits did not discover anything noteworthy about the document.
From a content guidelines perspective, the document is largely compliant; it is
correctly named, structured, and contains the required content. One deviation
from the Content Guidelines is the use of work emails for author contact, which
may not be stable over time.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
There are no such references.
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.
RFC 2985 and RFC 2986 are informational and therefore downward references.
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?
No.
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.
This document updates RFC 6698. This is clearly stated on the title page, in
the abstract, and in the introduction.
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 document clearly identifies its requests to IANA for new COSE Header
Parameter and Media Type Application registrations. These requests are
necessary and minimal. The document also establishes several new registries
with clear instructions and initial content.
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.
Here is the list:
- C509 Certificate Types Registry
- C509 Certificate Request Types Registry
- C509 Private Key Types Registry
- C509 Certificate Request Templates Types Registry
- C509 Attributes Registry
- C509 Extensions Registry
- C509 Certificate Policies Registry
- C509 Policies Qualifiers Registry
- C509 Information Access Registry
- C509 Extended Key Usages Registry
- C509 General Names Registry
- C509 Signature Algorithms Registry
- C509 Public Key Algorithms Registry
I believe that the instructions are clear.
[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/