# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
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?
The draft is straightforward and there was broad agreement during the LAMPS
meeting at IETF 124 that it was a good idea. The WG consensus represents broad
agreement rather than just a few individuals.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No. There was no controversy about particular points and no rough consensus
decisions.
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 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
One of the authors (Corey Bonnell) works for DigiCert, which plans to implement
this specification.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
This document interacts with IEEE 802 for MAC address format definitions
(EUI-48/EUI-64) and RFC 5280 (X.509 PKI) for certificate extensions and Name
Constraints. The document does not require review from other IETF WGs, as it is
a straightforward extension to existing PKIX mechanisms. The IEEE MAC address
formats are well-established standards. No additional external reviews are
necessary.
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.
This document does not define any MIBs, YANG modules, media types, or URI
schemes. No formal expert reviews of these types are required.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
This document does not contain a YANG module. This question is not applicable.
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.
The document contains an ASN.1 module in Section 6. The module has been
validated with an ASN.1 compiler.
## Document Shepherd Checks
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?
In the opinion of the shepherd, the document is clear, complete, correctly
designed, and no security concerns are noted. The document is ready to be
handed off to the responsible Area Director.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
The document falls under the Security Area. The Security Area checklist was
reviewed; no concerns noted. The document includes a Security Considerations
section addressing CA validation, dynamic MAC assignment concerns, and scope
limitations, as well as a Privacy Considerations subsection addressing device
tracking concerns.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. The document defines a new otherName form for X.509
certificates to carry MAC addresses, extending the framework defined in
RFC 5280. It uses normative language (MUST/SHOULD) to ensure interoperability
and specifies precise encoding rules and Name Constraints processing
algorithms. Proposed Standard is appropriate as this defines protocol elements
that require consistent implementation across deployments. The Datatracker
correctly reflects the intended status. Note that the "Intended status:
Informational" shown in the current draft text is incorrect and will need to
be corrected to "Proposed Standard" in a future revision.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
The authors have been reminded of their IPR disclosure obligations. Authors
have responded affirmatively by private email confirming awareness of
IPR obligations.
To the best of my knowledge, no IPR disclosures have been filed or are needed
for this document.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
The document has four authors listed on the front page: Russ Housley (Vigil
Security), Corey Bonnell (DigiCert), Joe Mandel (AKAYLA), and Tomofumi Okubo
(Penguin Securities). This is within the five-author limit and does not require
justification. Authors have confirmed their willingness to be listed by
private email.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The idnits tool (version 2.17.1) reports the following issues:
Errors: 3 instances of lines longer than 72 characters (longest is 13
characters over limit).
Warnings: 9 instances of lines with non-ASCII characters in the document
(en-dash characters in Section 7.3).
Comments: Reference-like text "[0]" on line 488 (this is intentional ASN.1
notation, not a missing reference).
The long lines and non-ASCII en-dash characters will be fixed in a future
revision.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
The document has only normative references: RFC 2119 (BCP 14 keywords),
RFC 5280 (X.509 PKI), RFC 5912 (ASN.1 modules for PKIX), and RFC 8174 (BCP 14
clarification). All references appear to be correctly classified.
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 (RFC 2119, RFC 5280, RFC 5912, RFC 8174) are freely
available from the RFC Editor. No access issues exist.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
The document is targeting Proposed Standard status. RFC 5912 is an
Informational RFC being referenced normatively from a Proposed Standard.
However, RFC 5912 is already listed in the DOWNREF registry, so no new downref
approval is required.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No. All normative references are to published RFCs.
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.
No. This document does not update or obsolete any existing RFCs. It defines a
new otherName form that extends the framework defined in RFC 5280.
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][11]).
The IANA Considerations section (Section 5) requests two assignments:
1. SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0): TBD0 for
id-mod-mac-address-other-name-2025. This is used in the ASN.1 module
definition in Section 6.
2. SMI Security for PKIX Other Name Forms (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8): TBD1 for
id-on-MACAddress. This is the OID for the new otherName form, referenced
throughout Sections 3 and 6.
The registries are correctly identified. No new registries are created. The
assignments are consistent with the body of the document.
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.
This document does not create any new IANA registries. No Designated Expert is
required.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/