Related Certificates for Use in Multiple Authentications within a Protocol
draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-02-26
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/afewwZawBH0_g_46vWziVLZ_yfY/ |
2024-02-26
|
03 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Alison Becker, Rebecca Guthrie, Michael Jenkins (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-26
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## 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? This document was broadly agreed to and uncontroversial. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 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)? This document is intended to be used in US government PKIs and is written and supported by a relevant agency. ## 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. No. 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. Not relevant. 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. 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 chairs assisted the authors in getting the ASN.1 modules to compile correctly, they now do. ## 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 was carefully written and has been carefully reviewed. 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? The Security checklist has been reviewed. 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. This is appropriate for a technology intended to be used at scale in production. Datatracker is correct. 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. The authors have each stated they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. 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. Yes. 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.) There are some non-ascii characters left and the copyright year is now wrong since it passed WGLC in 2023. In the shepherd's opinion, these can be bundled up and addressed along with AD comments. 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? Only RFCs are referenced. 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. No. 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. No. 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]). Two OIDs and a module ID are requested. The assignments look fine, though the name of the module references "2023". It perhaps should be updated to "2024" or have the reference to the year of publication removed. The shepherd is unaware of a reason the year should be included and the document does not justify its inclusion. 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. None. [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/ |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-02-21
|
03 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## 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? This document was broadly agreed to and uncontroversial. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 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)? This document is intended to be used in US government PKIs and is written and supported by a relevant agency. ## 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. No. 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. Not relevant. 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. 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 chairs assisted the authors in getting the ASN.1 modules to compile correctly, they now do. ## 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 was carefully written and has been carefully reviewed. 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? The Security checklist has been reviewed. 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. This is appropriate for a technology intended to be used at scale in production. Datatracker is correct. 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. The authors have each stated they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. 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. Yes. 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.) There are some non-ascii characters left and the copyright year is now wrong since it passed WGLC in 2023. In the shepherd's opinion, these can be bundled up and addressed along with AD comments. 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? Only RFCs are referenced. 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. No. 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. No. 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]). Two OIDs and a module ID are requested. The assignments look fine, though the name of the module references "2023". It perhaps should be updated to "2024" or have the reference to the year of publication removed. The shepherd is unaware of a reason the year should be included and the document does not justify its inclusion. 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. None. [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/ |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-02-21
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-02-16
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2024-02-16
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | Notification list changed to tim.hollebeek@digicert.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-02-16
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | Document shepherd changed to Tim Hollebeek |
2023-11-29
|
03 | Alison Becker | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-03.txt |
2023-11-29
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-11-29
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alison Becker , Michael Jenkins , Rebecca Guthrie |
2023-11-29
|
03 | Alison Becker | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-20
|
02 | Alison Becker | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-02.txt |
2023-11-20
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-11-20
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alison Becker , Michael Jenkins , Rebecca Guthrie |
2023-11-20
|
02 | Alison Becker | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-26
|
01 | Alison Becker | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-01.txt |
2023-06-26
|
01 | Alison Becker | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alison Becker) |
2023-06-26
|
01 | Alison Becker | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-21
|
00 | Russ Housley | Added to session: IETF-116: lamps Wed-0030 |
2023-02-27
|
00 | Jenny Bui | This document now replaces draft-becker-guthrie-cert-binding-for-multi-auth instead of None |
2023-02-24
|
00 | Alison Becker | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-00.txt |
2023-02-24
|
00 | Russ Housley | WG -00 approved |
2023-02-24
|
00 | Alison Becker | Set submitter to "Alison Becker ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org |
2023-02-24
|
00 | Alison Becker | Uploaded new revision |