Clarification of Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST): Transfer Encodings and ASN.1
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-10

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document, I found it easy to read.

No concerns, just some minor nits:

1.  Introduction

  This document deals with errata numbers [errata4384], [errata5107],
  [errata5108], and [errata5904].

  This document deals explicitely with [errata5107] and [errata5904] in
  Section 3. [errata5108] is dealt with in section Section 5.

  [errata4384] is closed by correcting the ASN.1 Module in Section 4.

Typo on explicitly, but I would propose merge these three paragraphs into one:

E.g.
  This document deals with [errata5107] and [errata5904] in
  Section 3. [errata5108] is dealt with in Section 5.  [errata4384] is
  closed by correcting the ASN.1 Module in Section 4.

There are also some paragraph indentation issues that could be tweaked in sections 3.2.3 & 3.2.4, or if the tooling is tricky to fix this then you could leave a note to flag it for the RFC editor.

7.  Security Considerations

applies also => also apply

[Ballot comment]
[[ questions ]]

[ section 5.2 ]

* Did you want this "response data must" to be "... MUST"?

[[ nits ]]

[ abstract ]

* s/were presented/were present/?

[Ballot comment]
The reference to RFC 5212 (Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-Region and
Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)) in the ASN.1 module needs to be replaced
by 5912 (New ASN.1 Modules for the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX)).  Note that the last-call announcement claimed (properly,
according to the state of the document) that there is a downref to 5212,
but 5912 is already in the registry so we should not need to re-run the
IETF LC.

It seems like we might want to move EIDs 4384, 5904, 5107, and 5108 out
of status "Reported" (i.e., to "Hold for Document Update") before
publishing this document.

Abstract

  This document updates RFC7030: Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST)
  to resolve some errata that were reported, and which has proven to
  cause interoperability issues when RFC7030 was extended.

nit: singular/plural mismatch "has proven"/"errata that were reported".

Section 4

  Responses to attribute request messages MUST be encoded as the
  content-type of "application/csrattrs", and are to be "base64"
  [RFC2045] encoded.  The syntax for application/csrattrs body is as

Should this be 4648 (not 2045)?

Section 5.2

  Replace:

      If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
      plaintext human-readable error message.

  with:

      If the content-type is not set, the response data must be a
      plaintext human-readable error message.

Why do we lose the 2119 "MUST" here?  We kept it in Section 5.1.

Section 10.1

RFC 8179 is listed but does not seem to be cited anywhere.

Section 10.2

One could perhaps argue that RFC 2985 should be normative, but it
doesn't seem very important.

Appendix A

  id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
      us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) aa(2) 54 }

Pedantically, RFC 7030 spells it as "{id-aa 54}" but I'm not actually
complaining about doing it this way.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-mod-est-2019
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Attributes (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2) registry also on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

the existing registration for:

Decimal: 54
Description: id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID

will be changed to add [ RFC-to-be ] to the existing reference of RFC 7030.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-07-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Russ Housley , housley@vigilsec.com, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Clarification of Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST): transfer encodings and ASN.1) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: -
'Clarification of Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST): transfer
  encodings and ASN.1'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-07-09. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document updates RFC7030: Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST)
  to resolve some errata that was reported, and which has proven to
  cause interoperability issues when RFC7030 was extended.

  This document deprecates the specification of "Content-Transfer-
  Encoding" headers for EST endpoints.  This document fixes some
  syntactical errors in ASN.1 that was presented.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc5212: Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN) (Informational - IETF stream)

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-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.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is a 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 updates RFC 7030 to resolve reported errata, add
    clarifications to improve interoperability, deprecate the use of
    "Content-Transfer-Encoding" headers for EST endpoints, and provides
    an ASN.1 module for RFC 7030.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    EST has wide support.  Several people have expressed support of
    the clarifications in this document.
 
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Roman Danyliw 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 did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  All issues were raised and 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 the document.

  The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
  related to the 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 were issued against RFC 7030 or 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, once it is approved, will update RFC 7030.


(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?

  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.

  There are downward normative reference to Informational RFC 2986,
  Informational RFC 5912, and Informational RFC 6268.  The first two
  are already in the downref registry, so no special action is needed
  for them.  There are downward normative reference to RFC 6268 needs
  to be called out in the IETF Last Call.  Note that RFC 6268 is an
  updated to RFC 5911, which is already in the downref registry.


(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 new RFC will update RFC 7030, 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).

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this document makes use of object
  identifiers (OIDs).
 
  This document requests that IANA register an OID in the SMI Security
  for PKIX Arc in the Module identifiers arc (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) for
  the ASN.1 module.
 
  The OID for the Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier is defined in
  RFC 7030, and it was previously assigned (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.54).
  However, IANA is requested to update the "Reference" column for the
  Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier attribute to also include a
  reference to this doducment.


(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.

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A properly compiles.

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-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.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is a 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 updates RFC 7030 to resolve reported errata, add
    clarifications to improve interoperability, deprecate the use of
    "Content-Transfer-Encoding" headers for EST endpoints, and provides
    an ASN.1 module for RFC 7030.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    EST has wide support.  Several people have expressed support of
    the clarifications in this document.
 
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Roman Danyliw 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 did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  All issues were raised and 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 the document.

  The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
  related to the 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 were issued against RFC 7030 or 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, once it is approved, will update RFC 7030.


(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?

  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.

  There are downward normative reference to Informational RFC 2986,
  Informational RFC 5912, and Informational RFC 6268.  The first two
  are already in the downref registry, so no special action is needed
  for them.  There are downward normative reference to RFC 6268 needs
  to be called out in the IETF Last Call.  Note that RFC 6268 is an
  updated to RFC 5911, which is already in the downref registry.


(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 new RFC will update RFC 7030, 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).

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this document makes use of object
  identifiers (OIDs).
 
  This document requests that IANA register an OID in the SMI Security
  for PKIX Arc in the Module identifiers arc (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) for
  the ASN.1 module.
 
  The OID for the Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier is defined in
  RFC 7030, and it was previously assigned (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.54).
  However, IANA is requested to update the "Reference" column for the
  Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier attribute to also include a
  reference to this doducment.


(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.

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A properly compiles.

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-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.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is a 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 updates RFC 7030 to resolve reported errata, add
    clarifications to improve interoperability, deprecate the use of
    "Content-Transfer-Encoding" headers for EST endpoints, and provides
    an ASN.1 module for RFC 7030.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    EST has wide support.  Several people have expressed support of
    the clarifications in this document.
 
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Roman Danyliw 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 did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  All issues were raised and 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 the document.

  The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
  related to the 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 were issued against RFC 7030 or 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, once it is approved, will update RFC 7030.


(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?

  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.

  There are downward normative reference to Informational RFC 2986,
  Informational RFC 5912, and Informational RFC 6268.  The first two
  are already in the downref registry, so no special action is needed
  for them.  There are downward normative reference to RFC 6268 needs
  to be called out in the IETF Last Call.  Note that RFC 6268 is an
  updated to RFC 5911, which is already in the downref registry.


(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 new RFC will update RFC 7030, 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).

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this doccment makes use of object
  identifiers (OIDs).
 
  This document requests that IANA register an OID in the SMI Security
  for PKIX Arc in the Module identifiers arc (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) for
  the ASN.1 module.
 
  The OID for the Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier is defined in
  RFC 7030, and it was previously assigned (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.54).
  However, IANA is requested to update the "Reference" column for the
  Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier attribute to also include a
  reference to this doducment.


(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.

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A properly compiles.

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-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.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is a 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 updates RFC 7030 to resolve reported errata, add
    clarifications to improve interoperability, deprecate the use of
    "Content-Transfer-Encoding" headers for EST endpoints, and provides
    an ASN.1 module for RFC 7030.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    EST has wide support.  Several people have expressed support of
    the clarifications in this document.
 
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Roman Danyliw 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 did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  All issues were raised and 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 the document.

  The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
  related to the 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 were issued against RFC 7030 or 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, once it is approved, will update RFC 7030.


(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?

  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.

  There are downward normative reference to Informational RFC 2986,
  Informational RFC 5912, and Informational RFC 6268.  The first two
  are already in the downref registry, so no special action is needed
  for them.  There are downward normative reference to RFC 6268 needs
  to be called out in the IETF Last Call.  Note that RFC 6268 is an
  updated to RFC 5911, which is already in the downref registry.


(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 new RFC will update RFC 7030, 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).

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this doucment makes use of object
  identifiers (OIDs).
 
  This document requests that IANA register an OID in the SMI Security
  for PKIX Arc in the Module identifiers arc (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) for
  the ASN.1 module.
 
  The OID for the Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier is defined in
  RFC 7030, and it was previously assigned (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.54).
  However, IANA is requested to update the "Reference" column for the
  Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier attribute to also include a
  reference to this doducment.


(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.

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A properly compiles.