Shepherd writeup

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-crmf-update-algs-04

(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 title page indicates that type of RFC.

(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 the cryptographic algorithm requirements for
   the Password-Based Message Authentication Code in the Internet X.509
   Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)
   specified in RFC 4211.

  Working Group Summary:

   There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

   The document is well-written and easy to understand. 


    Tim Hollebeek 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 and other LAMPS WG participants reviewed the
  document during WG Last Call.  All issues raised have been resolved.

(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.

  No special review needed.

(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 author has explicitly stated that he is unaware of any additional
  IP that was introduced in the updates to the document.

  The author has explicitly stated that he does not hold any IPR
  related to the document.

  RFC 4211, which is updated by this document, was published before
  the rules in RFC 5378 can into existence.  As a result, the RFC 4211
  text is considered pre-5378.  However, all of the NEW text in this
  document is contributed in accordance with RFC 5378.  The author
  believes that the disclaimer for pre-5378 work is not needed for
  this document.

(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 have been submitted against this Internet-Draft.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

IDNits review reports no errors or warnings.  The document shepherd reviewed the Internet-Drafts checklist with respect to this draft and found no issues.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  None needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes, the references are divided into normative and 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?

  All references are already published.

(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.

  Yes, there is a downref to RFC 8018 that needs to be called out in the IETF
  Last Call.  After a successful IETF Last Call, please add RFC 8018 to the
  downref registry in the datatracker.

(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.

  It will not.

(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).

  The document does not require any work from IANA.

(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.
  The only formal language in the document is a few lines of ASN.1, which were reviewed by the document shepherd.