Shepherd writeup
rfc8398-18

(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

(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 defines a new name form for inclusion in the otherName
   field of an X.509 Subject Alternative Name and Issuer Alternate Name
   extension that allows a certificate subject to be associated with an
   Internationalized Email Address.

Working Group Summary

   The LAMPS WG reviewed the document and reached consensus on the
   content.

Document Quality

   Vendors associated with major implementations of S/MIME have
   indicated that they intend to support EAI, and this capability
   is needed for them to do so.

Personnel

   Document Shepherd: Russ Housley
   Responsible Area Director: Stephen Farrell

(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.

   Russ Housley reviewed the document during WG Last Call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   No.

(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.

   This document is about adding support for EAI to certificates for
   use by S/MIME.  It has been reviewed by people with a strong
   background in internationalization, PKIX, and S/MIME.

(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.

   Both authors have stated that they are unaware of any IPR
   related to this work.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

   During development of this document, it has been known by three
   Internet-Draft file names:
   
      - draft-ietf-pkix-eai-addresses
      - draft-melnikov-spasm-eai-addresses
      - draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses

   No IPR disclosures have been submitted against any of these names.

(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?   

   The LAMPS WG is pretty small, but the participants have the needed
   expertise for this document.  The consensus of the LAMPS WG is
   strong.

(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 or otherwise indicated discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

   IDnits reports that two lines exceed 72 characters.  They are
   easy to correct, and there is no doubt that the RFC Editor will
   do so.

   IDnits incorrectly marks "[0]" as a reference, but it is an ASN.1
   tag, so those warnings need to be ignored.

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

   No formal reviews are required, and the document shepherd is
   the IANA expert for the registries that require assignments.

(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. 

   RFC 5912 is an Informational RFC, but it is a normative reference.
   This may need to be called out in the IETF Last Call.

(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.

   No.

(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 shepherd is the IANA expert for the entries to be added.

   No new IANA registries are needed.

(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.

   The document shepherd is the IANA expert for the entries to be added.

(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 ASN.1 module in Appendix A compiles properly.
Back