Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-05
(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. Yes, the header calls for Standards Track.
When RFC 9480 was approved by the IESG, the LAMPS WG was asked to make
a bis document instead of a complicated update document. Here it is...
(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 describes how to layer the Certificate Management
Protocol (CMP) over HTTP. This document will obsolete RFC 6712 and
RFC 9480.
Working Group Summary:
There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.
Document Quality:
Vendors with CMP implementations have indicated that they intend to
support the updated specification, and at least one open source effort
is underway.
Personnel:
Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
Deb Cooley 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 LAMPS WG supported the updates in RFC 9480. The document shepherd
did a thorough review of the document during WG Last Call. All issues
were 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.
Several people that were involved in the PKIX WG were part of the
review that took place during LAMPS WG Last Call.
(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 authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any
additional IP that was introduced in the updates to RFC 6712.
The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
related to the updates to RFC 6712.
Note that RFC 4210 was written prior to the publication of RFC 5378,
and RFC 6712 updates RFC 4210. Further, RFC 6712 contains the pre-
5378 boilerplate text. However, each of the authors of RFC 4210 have
been contacted and each of them has explicitly released rights to the
IETF Trust. A document for signature has been sent to the authors by
the IETF Trust, and we expect that it will be signed before IETF
Last Call completes. Therefore, the pre5378Trust200902 IPR
Boilerplate is not used.
(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 were issued against this document.
(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 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
This document will obsolete RFC 6712 and RFC 9480.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No special reviews are needed.
(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?
[I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis] is a normative reference, and these two
documents are being sent to the IESG at the same time.
(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.
This document will obsolete RFC 6712 and RFC 9480, which is
clearly stated on the title page and the Abstract.
(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).
Updates to some IANA registries are needed so that existing registry
entries point to this document instead of RFC 2510 or RFC 4210.
(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.
None.