Update to the Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update-02

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

A very minor comment - I think the first sentence in the abstract can be removed and the 2nd sentence can be strengthened to cover the arc definition it is referring to.

[Ballot comment]
Minor fix but it has to be done.

Nits: s/establishe*d* an IANA registry for that arc,/establishe*s* an IANA registry for that arc,/ in section 1 ?

Regards and thanks for your time on this one

-éric

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update-00. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry located at:

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

a new registry is to be created called the SMI Security for PKIX CRMF Registration Controls for Alternate Certificate Formats (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.5.1.7) registry. This registry is to be maintained via Specification Required as defined by RFC8126.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Decimal Description References
------- ------------------------------ ----------
1 id-acTemplate [RFC4212]
2 id-openPGPCertTemplateExt [RFC4212]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-09-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Update to the Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: - 'Update to
the Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group'
  as Informational RFC

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 2021-09-16. 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


  When the Public-Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Working Group
  was chartered, an object identifier arc was allocated by IANA for use
  by that working group.  RFC 7299 describes the object identifiers
  that were assigned in that arc.  A small number of object identifiers
  that were assigned in RFC 4212 are not included in RFC 7299, and this
  document corrects that oversight.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update/



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

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update


(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:

  RFC 7299 describes the object identifiers that were assigned by the
  PKIX Working Group.  A small number of object identifiers that were
  assigned in RFC 4212 are not included in RFC 7299, and this document
  corrects that oversight.

  Working Group Summary:

  There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

  The document is well-written and easy to understand.

  Personnel:

    Tim Hollebeek 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 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 has explicitly stated that he is unaware of any additional
  IP that was introduced in the updates to the document.

  The author has explicitly stated that he does 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 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 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.

IDNits review reports no errors or warnings.  The document shepherd reviewed the Internet-Drafts checklist with respect to this draft and found no issues.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  It will not.

(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 entire purpose of the document is to add some IANA registrations
  that were missed in RFC 7299.  The document describes the missing
  values, and includes the appropriate verbiage about how new values
  should be added in the future.

(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.

  In section 2.1, the document describes the new registry "SMI Security
  for PKIX CRMF Registration Controls for Alternate Certificate Formats". 
  Future updates will be "Specification Required".  The expert needs to
  be familiar with the work done in the PKIX working group.  In the
  opinion of the document shepherd, the author would be an excellent
  choice for this role.


(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 document does not contain any text written in a formal language.

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update


(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:

  RFC 7299 describes the object identifiers that were assigned by the
  PKIX Working Group.  A small number of object identifiers that were
  assigned in RFC 4212 are not included in RFC 7299, and this document
  corrects that oversight.

  Working Group Summary:

  There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

  The document is well-written and easy to understand.

  Personnel:

    Tim Hollebeek 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 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 has explicitly stated that he is unaware of any additional
  IP that was introduced in the updates to the document.

  The author has explicitly stated that he does 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 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 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.

IDNits review reports no errors or warnings.  The document shepherd reviewed the Internet-Drafts checklist with respect to this draft and found no issues.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  It will not.

(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 entire purpose of the document is to add some IANA registrations
  that were missed in RFC 7299.  The document describes the missing
  values, and includes the appropriate verbiage about how new values
  should be added in the future.

(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.

  In section 2.1, the document describes the new registry "SMI Security
  for PKIX CRMF Registration Controls for Alternate Certificate Formats". 
  Future updates will be "Specification Required".  The expert needs to
  be familiar with the work done in the PKIX working group.  In the
  opinion of the document shepherd, the author would be an excellent
  choice for this role.


(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 document does not contain any text written in a formal language.