Shepherd writeup
rfc8649-07

(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?

  Informational.  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 specifies the Hash Of Root Key certificate extension.
   This certificate extension is carried in the self-signed certificate
   for a trust anchor, which is often called a Root Certification
   Authority (CA) certificate.  This certificate extension unambiguously
   identifies the next public key that will be used by the trust anchor
   at some point in the future.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    This extension is part of the specifications that will be used
    in at least one new PKI.  In addition, the Secure Electronic
    Transaction (SET) specification published by MasterCard and VISA
    in 1997 includes a very similar certificate extension.  The SET
    certificate extension has essentially the same semantics, but the
    syntax fairly different.

  Personnel:

    Tim Hollebeek is the document shepherd.
    Eric Rescorla 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 explicitly stated that he is unaware of any unexpired
  IPR related to 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 Informational 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  IDnits 2.16.0 is reporting an error in the RFC 2119 boilerplate
  because there is not a space between the two references in
  "[RFC2119][RFC8174]".


(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.

  There are no downward references.


(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.

  Publication of this document will not change the status of any
  other document.


(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).

  No IANA updates or additions 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.

  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.

  ASN.1 is used, and the module in Appendix A compiles without
  errors or warnings.
Back