Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-Based Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-01-10
|
(System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis and RFC 9708, changed IESG state to RFC … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis and RFC 9708, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2025-01-08
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2024-12-23
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2024-12-20
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2024-10-18
|
03 | Carlos Pignataro | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2024-10-18
|
03 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Marisol Palmero was marked no-response |
2024-10-02
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2024-10-02
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2024-10-02
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2024-09-23
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2024-09-23
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2024-09-23
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2024-09-23
|
03 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2024-09-20
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-09-20
|
03 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Deb Cooley | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the discussion and the changes. I have updated my ballot to Yes |
2024-09-20
|
03 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Paul Wouters has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2024-09-19
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-09-19
|
03 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-03.txt |
2024-09-19
|
03 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2024-09-19
|
03 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2024-09-05
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2024-09-05
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-09-04
|
02 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-09-03
|
02 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2024-09-03
|
02 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2024-09-03
|
02 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the GENART review. |
2024-09-03
|
02 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2024-09-03
|
02 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-09-02
|
02 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot discuss] Why is SHAKE256 picked over SHA3-256? Doesn't this cut the preimage resistance in half? Is the increased speed of 2x compared to SHA2-256 … [Ballot discuss] Why is SHAKE256 picked over SHA3-256? Doesn't this cut the preimage resistance in half? Is the increased speed of 2x compared to SHA2-256 really that important? What considerations were made for this? Why not define both SHA3-256 and SHAKE256 and let people pick their preferred option? Should the reasoning for these choices perhaps be added to the document so others can be informed about the choices made? |
2024-09-02
|
02 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013] and progress in the development of quantum computers [NAS2019] pose … [Ballot comment] Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013] and progress in the development of quantum computers [NAS2019] pose a threat If cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) are ever built, these computers will be able to I find the first sentence contradicting the rest of the section. Maybe say "future threat" or "possible threat"? The HSS/LMS signatures [HASHSIG] are currently defined to use SHA-256 [SHS] and SHAKE256 [SHA3]. I guess I am seeing a start of confusion about SHA3 vs SHAKE256. But I think it is too late to try and fix that terminology now :/ An implementation MUST ensure that an LM-OTS private key is used to generate a signature only one time and ensure that it cannot be used for any other purpose. How can an implementer "ensure that it cannot be used for any other purpose" ? You mean with EKU flags or something else? |
2024-09-02
|
02 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-09-01
|
02 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] I am yet to see a response to the SECDIR review done by Donald Eastlake. Hope the authors are planning to address the … [Ballot comment] I am yet to see a response to the SECDIR review done by Donald Eastlake. Hope the authors are planning to address the comments. Section 1.4, paragraph 4 > Provide more detail in Section 4 regarding allowed values in the > X.509 certificate key usage extension for an HSS/LMS public key. Is this a TODO for the author? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. These URLs in the document did not return content: * http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783540887010-c1.pdf Section 1, paragraph 1 > ystem to efficiently scale for a larger numbers of signatures. The HSS/LMS al > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The plural noun "numbers" cannot be used with the article "a". Did you mean "a larger number" or "larger numbers"? |
2024-09-01
|
02 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2024-08-30
|
02 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work done in this document. Some non-blocking comments though ;-) The shepherd's write-up is slight inconsistent as it says … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work done in this document. Some non-blocking comments though ;-) The shepherd's write-up is slight inconsistent as it says that this I-D "updates" RFC 8708 while it actually obsoletes it. Also, I am unsure whether this I-D is fixing an erratum (Q1 of the template) or at least the erratum reference would be welcome. ## Section 1.3 I find weird to have a 2013 reference in the same sentence as "recent advances", see `Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013]` ;-) ## Section 1.4 Is there some hand waving in this section with terms like `there are plans` and `yet-to-be-published` ? I am not very familiar in the PKIX/CMS parts of the Internet, so this may well be clear for more knowledgeable people. |
2024-08-30
|
02 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-08-29
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-08-29
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-08-21
|
02 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2024-08-17
|
02 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-08-15
|
02 | Deb Cooley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-09-05 |
2024-08-15
|
02 | Deb Cooley | Ballot has been issued |
2024-08-15
|
02 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deb Cooley |
2024-08-15
|
02 | Deb Cooley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-08-15
|
02 | Deb Cooley | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-08-15
|
02 | Deb Cooley | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-08-13
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-08-13
|
02 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-02.txt |
2024-08-13
|
02 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2024-08-13
|
02 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2024-08-13
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2024-08-13
|
01 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-08-10
|
01 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Marisol Palmero |
2024-08-09
|
01 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-08-09
|
01 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) registry in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/ The existing registry for value 64; description: id-mod-mts-hashsig-2013 will have its reference changed from [RFC8708] to [ RFC-to-be ]. Second, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Algorithms (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.3) registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/ The existing registry for value 17; description: id-alg-hss-lms-hashsig will have its reference changed from [RFC8708] to [ RFC-to-be ]. We understand 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. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-08-09
|
01 | Linda Dunbar | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list. |
2024-08-02
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2024-08-01
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2024-07-30
|
01 | Jenny Bui | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-07-30
|
01 | Jenny Bui | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-13): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-13): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-Based Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) 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: - 'Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-Based Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)' 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 2024-08-12. 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 specifies the conventions for using the Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) / Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) hash-based signature algorithm with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). In addition, the algorithm identifier and public key syntax are provided. The HSS/LMS algorithm is one form of hash-based digital signature; it is described in RFC 8554. This document obsoletes RFC 8708. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-07-30
|
01 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-07-29
|
01 | Deb Cooley | Last call was requested |
2024-07-29
|
01 | Deb Cooley | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-07-29
|
01 | Deb Cooley | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-07-29
|
01 | Deb Cooley | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-07-29
|
01 | Deb Cooley | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2024-07-29
|
01 | Deb Cooley | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | # 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 … # 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? There is broad support for fixing this errata. 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. 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 document is being driven by existing implementations, which need additional functionality beyond what RFC 8708 provides. ## 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 is strictly limited to updating RFC 8708, which itself is pretty specific to LAMPS. 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. No such reviews. 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]? No 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. The ASN.1 in the document was reviewed by an expert, and the ASN.1 module at the end compiled without errors. ## 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? The document is relatively straightforward (at least, to those who can read RFC 8708) and clear. The overview in section 1.4 is very helpful, and the motivation is well written. 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 SECDIR checklist was followed. 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 is correct since it updates RFC 8708, which is standards track. Datatracker is correct. 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. Yes. 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. 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.) Notes on nits: - RFC 8554 is already in the downref registry, as are 5911 and 6268. The rest are fine, too. The Nspk references are actually array indexes in pseudocode. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No. 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 of the normative references are open standards. 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. No. 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. Yes, this is an update to RFC 8708. Datatracker and the abstract are correct. 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]). No IANA considerations. 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. No new registries. [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/ |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-07-11
|
01 | (System) | Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed) |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | # 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 … # 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? There is broad support for fixing this errata. 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. 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 document is being driven by existing implementations, which need additional functionality beyond what RFC 8708 provides. ## 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 is strictly limited to updating RFC 8708, which itself is pretty specific to LAMPS. 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. No such reviews. 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]? No 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. The ASN.1 in the document was reviewed by an expert, and the ASN.1 module at the end compiled without errors. ## 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? The document is relatively straightforward (at least, to those who can read RFC 8708) and clear. The overview in section 1.4 is very helpful, and the motivation is well written. 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 SECDIR checklist was followed. 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 is correct since it updates RFC 8708, which is standards track. Datatracker is correct. 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. Yes. 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. 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.) Notes on nits: - RFC 8554 is already in the downref registry, as are 5911 and 6268. The rest are fine, too. The Nspk references are actually array indexes in pseudocode. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No. 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 of the normative references are open standards. 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. No. 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. Yes, this is an update to RFC 8708. Datatracker and the abstract are correct. 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]). No IANA considerations. 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. No new registries. [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/ |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | # 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 … # 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? There is broad support for fixing this errata. 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. 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 document is being driven by existing implementations, which need additional functionality beyond what RFC 8708 provides. ## 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 is strictly limited to updating RFC 8708, which itself is pretty specific to LAMPS. 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. No such reviews. 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]? No 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. The ASN.1 in the document was reviewed by an expert, and the ASN.1 module at the end compiled without errors. ## 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? The document is relatively straightforward (at least, to those who can read RFC 8708) and clear. The overview in section 1.4 is very helpful, and the motivation is well written. 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 SECDIR checklist was followed. 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 is correct since it updates RFC 8708, which is standards track. Datatracker is correct. 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. Yes. 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. 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.) Notes on nits: - RFC 8554 is already in the downref registry, as are 5911 and 6268. The rest are fine, too. The Nspk references are actually array indexes in pseudocode. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No. 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 of the normative references are open standards. 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. No. 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. Yes, this is an update to RFC 8708. Datatracker and the abstract are correct. 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]). No IANA considerations. 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. No new registries. [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/ |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | Notification list changed to tim.hollebeek@digicert.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | Document shepherd changed to Tim Hollebeek |
2024-07-11
|
01 | Tim Hollebeek | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2024-06-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01.txt |
2024-06-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2024-06-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-30
|
00 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-00.txt |
2024-05-30
|
00 | Tim Hollebeek | WG -00 approved |
2024-05-29
|
00 | Russ Housley | Set submitter to "Russ Housley ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org |
2024-05-29
|
00 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |