General Purpose Extended Key Usage (EKU) for Document Signing X.509 Certificates
draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-03
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-05-05
|
03 | Russ Housley | Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-03 (1) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-03 (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? There is broad support for this document in the LAMPS WG. (2) Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? One or two people spoke against it when the idea was originally raised, but no one spoke against it in the last year. (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 one has threatened an appeal or indicated extreme discontent. (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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Several Certification Authorities (CAs) have expressed an intention to support this new extended key usage value. (5) Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? None needed. (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. ASN.1 is used. The document shepherd compiled the ASN.1 module after inserting placeholder values for the ones that need to be assigned by IANA. It compiles without errors. (7) If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? YANG is not used in the document. (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. ASN.1 is used. The document shepherd compiled the ASN.1 module after inserting placeholder values for the ones that need to be assigned by IANA. It compiles without errors. (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? The document shepherd finds the document clear and complete. (10) Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? The document shepherd finds no concerns. (11) What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. The datatracker indicates this intent. (12) Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. All authors and contributors have explicitly confirmed that all IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. There are none. (13) Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. All authors have explicitly confirmed their willingness to be listed as an author. All contributors are listed as authors. (14) Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. IDnits does not raise any issues. The document shepherd review of the document did not find any issues related to the Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts. (15) Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? All references are in the proper category. (16) List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are RFCs, except one. ITU-T X.680 can be downloaded for free from the following URL: https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-X.680-202102-I!!PDF-E (17) Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downrefs. (18) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? All of the normative references have already been published. (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. Publication of this document will not effect the status of any other documents. (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). No concerns were found. The IANA Considerations ask IANA to assign two object identifiers from existing registries, and the document shepherd is the IANA Designated Expert for the registries where these will be assigned. (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. No new IANA registries are needed. |
|
2022-05-05
|
03 | Russ Housley | Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-05-05
|
03 | Russ Housley | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2022-05-05
|
03 | Russ Housley | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2022-05-05
|
03 | Russ Housley | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2022-05-05
|
03 | Russ Housley | Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-03 (1) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-03 (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? There is broad support for this document in the LAMPS WG. (2) Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? One or two people spoke against it when the idea was originally raised, but no one spoke against it in the last year. (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 one has threatened an appeal or indicated extreme discontent. (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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? Several Certification Authorities (CAs) have expressed an intention to support this new extended key usage value. (5) Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? None needed. (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. ASN.1 is used. The document shepherd compiled the ASN.1 module after inserting placeholder values for the ones that need to be assigned by IANA. It compiles without errors. (7) If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? YANG is not used in the document. (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. ASN.1 is used. The document shepherd compiled the ASN.1 module after inserting placeholder values for the ones that need to be assigned by IANA. It compiles without errors. (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? The document shepherd finds the document clear and complete. (10) Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? The document shepherd finds no concerns. (11) What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. The datatracker indicates this intent. (12) Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. All authors and contributors have explicitly confirmed that all IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. There are none. (13) Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. All authors have explicitly confirmed their willingness to be listed as an author. All contributors are listed as authors. (14) Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. IDnits does not raise any issues. The document shepherd review of the document did not find any issues related to the Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts. (15) Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? All references are in the proper category. (16) List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are RFCs, except one. ITU-T X.680 can be downloaded for free from the following URL: https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-X.680-202102-I!!PDF-E (17) Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downrefs. (18) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? All of the normative references have already been published. (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. Publication of this document will not effect the status of any other documents. (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). No concerns were found. The IANA Considerations ask IANA to assign two object identifiers from existing registries, and the document shepherd is the IANA Designated Expert for the registries where these will be assigned. (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. No new IANA registries are needed. |
|
2022-05-04
|
03 | Russ Housley | Notification list changed to housley@vigilsec.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2022-05-04
|
03 | Russ Housley | Document shepherd changed to Russ Housley |
|
2022-05-04
|
03 | Russ Housley | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2022-05-04
|
03 | Russ Housley | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2022-05-04
|
03 | Russ Housley | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2022-03-31
|
03 | Tadahiko Ito | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-03.txt |
|
2022-03-31
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2022-03-31
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com>, Tomofumi Okubo <tomofumi.okubo+ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2022-03-31
|
03 | Tadahiko Ito | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-03-07
|
02 | Tadahiko Ito | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-02.txt |
|
2022-03-07
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2022-03-07
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com>, Tomofumi Okubo <tomofumi.okubo+ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2022-03-07
|
02 | Tadahiko Ito | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-03-01
|
01 | Tadahiko Ito | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-01.txt |
|
2022-03-01
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2022-03-01
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com>, Tomofumi Okubo <tomofumi.okubo+ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2022-03-01
|
01 | Tadahiko Ito | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-01-14
|
00 | Russ Housley | This document now replaces draft-ito-documentsigning-eku instead of None |
|
2022-01-14
|
00 | Tadahiko Ito | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-00.txt |
|
2022-01-14
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2022-01-12
|
00 | Tadahiko Ito | Set submitter to "Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2022-01-12
|
00 | Tadahiko Ito | Uploaded new revision |