(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?
This is a Standards Track RFC.
This is the correct type, and it is indicated in the document.
(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:
When RFC8152 was evaluated in it's move from Proposed Standard to Internet
Standard (and split into Algs and Structures documents), it was realized that
the Countersign aspects of RFC8152 were inconsistently described in certain
uses. While current users of RFC8152 do not use countersignatures in the way
that is inconsistent, new users could wind up with non-interoperable
implementations.
Countersignatures were therefore considered not mature enough to move to
Internet Standard, and were removed from RFC8152bis, and placed into this
document.
Technical Summary:
During the process of advancing COSE to an Internet Standard, it was
noticed the description of the security properties of
countersignatures was incorrect for the COSE_Sign1 structure. Since
the security properties that were described, those of a true
countersignature, were those that the working group desired, the
decision was made to remove all of the countersignature text from
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] and create a new document to both
deprecate the old countersignature algorithm and to define a new one
with the desired security properties.
Working Group Summary:
The WG thought long and hard about what result they wanted, and ultimately
the decision to remove countersignatures from RFC8152bis-struct was made
in a mature and well reasoned fashion.
Jim Schaad led process, and this documents is among the last that he
authored.
Document Quality:
There is an implementation status in the Internet-draft, and it includes only
an implementation in Java and C# by Jim Schaad.
While CBOR, and COSE, particularly COSE_Sign1 is widely implemented, the use
of counter signatures is a niche solution to unique situations.
OSCORE (RFC8613) is a user of countersignatures in their original,
non-ambiguous formulation.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Michael Richardson
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Ben Kaduk
(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.
The document shepherd read all of the versions of the document as they were
produced in 2020.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd has a minor concern that there are not more
implementation efforts, but that is not a requirement for PS.
(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.
No concerns.
(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?
No. The primary author is deceased.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR is known.
(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?
The WG was heavily involved in creating this document.
(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.
(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.
No nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(Probably I-D.ietf-cbor-7049bis could be replaced with RFC8949 now, but the
RFC-editor will take care of that)
(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.
The document has a normative reference to I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs,
which perhaps could be replaced with RFC8152 itself.
It is probably not a problem if they are published as a group.
(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.
No.
(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.
*maybe* draft-ietf-cose-countersign-02 be marked as Updates: RFC8152 (Amends).
(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 8126).
No concerns.
(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.
none.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
idnits.
(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?
No YANG MODULE.