Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation
Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors.
Yes, informational is appropriately indicated.

(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:

   In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester")
   produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a
   remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that
   Attester a trustworthy peer or not.  RATS are facilitated by an
   additional vital party, the Verifier.

This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS.

   In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a
   communication to know whether the other end is in an intended
   operating state.  This document provides an architectural overview of
   the entities involved that make such tests possible through the
   process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims.
   An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward
   processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols.

Working Group Summary:

This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural
considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this
version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team
did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. The working group also
reviewed IPR submitted and ultimately determined to go ahead with this
informational document (see response to question #8 below).

Document Quality:

There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting
documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to
follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing
formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and
validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall
architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important
capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for
increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be
a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation
provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment
technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of
understanding this simple, but complex set of standards.  The editors have done
a nice job of working through the identified issues.


Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty
Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw

(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 has followed the progress of this document from its
inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided
multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. The shepherd, WG Chairs, and
AD also followed the IPR review process and documented WG agreement to proceed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No

(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.

(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? Yes, each author has confirmed all IPR
disclosures appropriate have been submitted.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There
was an extended review process of the working group on submitted IPR for this
informational document. The outcome of this process was to proceed with
publication. The summary of this agreement is noted in the responsible Area
Director's message to the list with references to input from working group

(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 strong consensus among the
working group.

(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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra
reviews were required (or appropriate).

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? Yes.

(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? No.

(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. There are no downrefs.

(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. No.

(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 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document.

(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. N/A

(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, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams
and tables only.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
( 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
RFC8342? N/A