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 document reached broad agreement.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
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 expressed 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This is an update and merge of two older documents, RFC 3709 and RFC 6170.
Historical implementations exist for both RFCs, and implementations are rapidly
becoming more common as these RFCs are fundamental to Verified Mark Certificates
which are rapidly being rolled out by Google, Apple, and others.
These experiences have shown that the two documents are in need of modernization
(e.g. SHA-1 is mandatory to implement in RFC 3709), so this merge/update is very
timely and useful for the industry.
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.
The document is largely (and perhaps almost exclusively) of interest to
participants in the LAMPS working group.
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.
The document shepherd does not believe any such expert reviews 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]?
The document does not contain a YANG module.
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.
Review by a member of the working group found and fixed an error in the generation
of the examples which was fixed by the author; the author's examples and the
version generated by an independent reviewer now agree.
The document shepherd also independently reviewed and compiled the ASN.1 modules
included in the document.
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?
Yes. The document fixes a number of important issues with the two parent
documents, and the changes are helpfully summarized and documented in Appendix C.
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 shepherd reviewed the list of common issues for the Security area,
and did not find any of the identified issues in the document.
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, which matches the status of the document it replaces (RFC 3709).
The datatracker attributes appear to be correct.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? 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 current list of authors includes all the authors of the previous RFCs.
The document shepherd contacted the authors by private email and asked:
(1) You are still willing to be an author on the draft,
(2) You do not hold any IP related to the draft, and
(3) You are unaware of any other IP related to the draft.
All the authors responded affirmatively to all three statements
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.
Yes, see question #1 in response 12.
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.)
There are two remaining nits:
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics has been published as
RFC 9110
- will be fixed during the RFC publication process
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1952
- RFC 1952 is already in the DOWNREF registry
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
See 14 ... the remainder were manually reviewed and looked correct.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
None.
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.
There is one normative downward reference, but as noted above, it is already in
the DOWNREF registry.
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.
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.
The document obsoletes RFC 3709 and 6170. This is mentioned on the title page,
in the abstract, and in the introduction.
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 have been reviewed by the document shepherd and appear
to be correct. In addition, IANA early review has already happened
([IANA #1234128]), and the author responded that all references to 3709 and
6170 should be updated to point to this document once this document is
published as an RFC.
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.
The document does not propose any new IANA registries.