Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-17
(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?
Proposed Standard. Yes, the header calls for Standards Track.
This new RFC will update RFC 4210, which is a Proposed Standard.
This new RFC will update RFC 5912, which is an Informational document.
This new RFC will update RFC 6712, which is a Proposed Standard.
When this update was started, the number of updates was expected to
be smaller. It is recognized that complex update documents place a
burden on implementers. So, when LAMPS WG tries to progress CMP to
Internet Standard, a bis document will be produced to combine the
base specification and the updates.
(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:
Technical Summary:
This document updates RFC 4210, RFC 5912, and RFC 6712. It defines
the syntax of the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) version 3.
Working Group Summary:
There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.
Document Quality:
Vendors with CMP implementations have indicated that they intend to
support the updated syntax, and at least one open source effort is
underway.
Personnel:
Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
Roman Danyliw is the responsible area director.
(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 did a thorough review of the document during
WG Last Call. All issues were resolved. Also, the ASN.1 module
compiles without errors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns.
(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.
Several people that were involved in the PKIX WG were part of the
review that took place during LAMPS WG Last Call.
(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?
The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any
additional IP that was introduced in the updates to the document.
The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
related to the document.
Note that RFC 4210 was written prior to the publication of RFC 5378.
However, each of the authors of RFC 4210 have been contacted and
each of them has explicitly released rights to the IETF Trust.
Therefore, the pre5378Trust200902 IPR Boilerplate is not used.
(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 disclosures were issued against this document.
(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 is consensus for this document in the LAMPS 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 one has threatened an appeal.
(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, once it is approved, will update RFC 4210, RFC 5912,
and RFC 6712.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No special reviews are needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(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.
(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.
There are downward normative reference to Informational RFC 2986,
but it is already in the downref registry, so no special action is
needed.
(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.
This new RFC will update RFC 4210, RFC 5912, and RFC 6712, which is
clearly stated on the title page and the Abstract.
(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).
Updates to some IANA registries are needed. In some cases, early
assignment have already been requested and made.
(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 new IANA registries are needed.
(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.
Both of the ASN.1 modules in Appendix A comile without errors.