Trust Anchor Format
draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-04

[Ballot comment]
Updated as per draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-04.txt:

2.4.  Trust Anchor Title

    TrustAnchorTitle ::= UTF8String (SIZE (1..64))

  taTitle is OPTIONAL.  When it is present, it provides a human
  readable name for the trust anchor.  The text is encoded in UTF-8
  [RFC3629], which accommodates most of the world's writing systems.
  The taTitleLangTag field identifies the language used to express the
  taTitle.  When taTitleLangTag is absent, English is used.  The value

Nit: this should clarify that "en" language tag is assumed, e.g.

When taTitleLangTag is absent, English ("en" language tag) is used.

  of the taTitleLangTag should be a language tag as described in
  [RFC5646]

[Ballot discuss]
1. I cannot find draft-ietf-pkix-ta-mgmt-reqs-03. As this specification is mentioned in the Abstract as the requirements that 'the structures defined in this document are intended to satisfy' I think that having this reference available at the time of the approval is necessary, even if the reference is Informational

2. What is the role of the version? Right now there is only one value which is also the DEFAULT

TrustAnchorInfoVersion ::= INTEGER { v1(1) }

New versions are supposed to be issued only by obsoleting this document?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document. I only have one minor concern about it:

>2.4.  Trust Anchor Title
>
>    TrustAnchorTitle ::= UTF8String (SIZE (1..64))
>
>  taTitle is OPTIONAL.  When it is present, it provides a human
>  readable name for the trust anchor.  The text is encoded in UTF-8
>  [RFC3629], which accommodates most of the world's writing systems.

BCP 18 (RFC 2277), section 4.2 says:

  Protocols that transfer text MUST provide for carrying information
  about the language of that text.

[...]

  Note that this does NOT mean that such information must always be
  present; the requirement is that if the sender of information wishes
  to send information about the language of a text, the protocol
  provides a well-defined way to carry this information.

So the document would need to have a normative reference to RFC 5646 and some text about use of language tags.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.1,

"This section describes the TrustAnchorInfo structure."

In what formal syntax language is used in this section? Please include a reference to the format used. This also applies to the other places in the document where the format is used. Probably a statement in section 1.1. could ensure that this is made clear.

  (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?

Steve Kent 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 document has reached WG consensus after considerable debate, during which the contents of this I-D were extracted from a larger specification.

    (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.  There is one normative reference to an in-progress I-D, which was recently changed from Standards Track to Informational:


  [I-D.ietf-pkix-new-asn1]
            Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for PKIX",
            draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1-05 (work in progress),
            April 2009.

    (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?



The ASN.1 appears to be correct, and most of it has been extracted from RFC 5280, 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 describes a structure for representing trust anchor
  information.  A trust anchor is an authoritative entity represented
  by a public key and associated data.  The public key is used to
  verify digital signatures and the associated data is used to
  constrain the types of information or actions for which the trust
  anchor is authoritative.  The structures defined in this document are
  intended to satisfy the format-related requirements defined in Trust
  Anchor Management Requirements.

Working Group Summary

This document entered the working group following the Trust Anchor Management BOF.  Initially, the contents were includes in the Trust Anchor Management (TAMP) I-D, which presented trust anchor format and trust anchor management protocol specifications in a single document.  The working group favored separate documents for protocol specification and format specification. This I-D contains the latter.  The draft was not particularly controversial, but a number of significant changes resulted from working group discussion, including support for additional formats.

Document Quality

The document is well-written and clear. I have been told that there is an open source implementation in progress.  The most common format used to represent a trust anchor today is a self-signed certificate and this format is accommodated in this standard.