ESSCertIDv2 Update for RFC 3161
draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161-update-09

  (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?

Stephen Kent is the document shepherd for this document, has personally reviewed this version of the document, and believes it is ready for IESG review and IETF last call.

    (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 key WG members. It has also been coordinated with individuals who are active in the ESI technical body of ETSI, which is responsible for several documents that depend on RFC 3161 timestamps.

    (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?

Not all PKIK WG members care about every I-D, and this document is no exception. Nonetheless, a fair number of WG members have commented on various aspects of this draft. Denis Pinkas (who was an author of RFC 3161) expressed concerns about several details in this update. Most of his concerns were addressed by revisions to the text, but, ultimately, some were determined to not be shared by other WG members.

    (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
        and
        . 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?

I ran both checks and there were no problems. There is no use of formal languages in the document.

    (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 stating that this document requires no actions by IANA.

    (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?

This document define use of elements defined in other documents but provides no new protocol definitions using any formal language.

    (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

The time stamping protocol defined in RFC 3161 requires that the CMS SignedData (RFC 3852), used to apply a digital signature on the time-stamp token, include a signed attribute that identifies the signer's certificate.
This document updates RFC 3161 and allows the use of ESSCertIDv2 defined in RFC 5035 to specify the hash of a signer certificate when the hash is calculated with a function other than SHA-1. The update provided by this draft is motivated by interoperability concerns and to facilitate migration to other hash algorithms.


Work Group Summary

This draft is the second attempt by the PKIX working group to specify an update of RFC 3161 to accommodate the ESSCertIDv2 identifier in RFC 3161 time stamps. Prior to this draft, another author (Denis Pinkas) submitted a draft that would have replaced RFC 3161. The workgroup rejected this draft on the basis that it introduced many material changes to the original RFC that were not viewed as necessary. As a result, this very brief document was created to provide just the necessary updates of ESSCertIDv2.

The protocol update portions of this document were very simple and not controversial. The Security Considerations section proved to be a significant challenge, as WG members demonstrated different opinions regarding the nature and severity of the threat mitigated by this protocol update. There was also some disagreement over whether this threat was within the scope of this document. The WG agreed on the present wording after considerable debate.

Document Quality

The document is very brief and is clearly written.