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.