Other Certificates Extension
draft-ietf-pkix-other-certs-05

[Ballot discuss]
I simply don't understand the use case of where this would be used. I don't have any problem with the mechanism, I just like the use case explained better of when one should use this.

Proto Writeup

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
          Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of
          the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Stefan Santesson is the document shepherd for this document, has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

    (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has received adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members.  There are no concerns regarding the depth or breath of the reviews that have been performed.

    (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

There are no specific concerns to highlight to the AD or IESG. No IPR disclosures have been filed related to this document.

    (1.e) 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?

This work received a fair amount of comments when it was proposed which lead to a number of updates to the original proposal. After this initial alignment there have only been a few minor comments on the draft.

    (1.f) 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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/  ). Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

    (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? 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
          strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References have been split into normative and informative sections.

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document? If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The I-D has an IANA Considerations section that indicates there are no IANA considerations.

    (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There is an ASN.1 module in Appendix A that appears to be correct, but I have not personally tried to compile it.

    (1.k) 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
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.
          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?
          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
            what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
            review, on what date was the request posted?

Technical Summary

This document defines a new X.509 certificate extension that allows applications to link together a set of certificates belonging to the same end entity, which can safely be considered to be equivalent.
The extension is inserted in a new certificate, which is considered equivalent to another previously issued certificate. The equivalent certificate is referenced using a certificate identifier defined in SCVP (RFC 5055).

Working Group Summary

See the answer to 1.e above.

Document Quality

The extension defined in this document has a very simple structure. The document should be more than adequate to allow interoperable implementations.