Concise Reference Integrity Manifest
draft-ietf-rats-corim-10

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

DATE OF THIS WRITE: 2025-08-14.
I-D reviewed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-corim/ version 08

>Document History
>Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document had a fair-bit of discussion when it was being adopted in 2024.
There was an awful lot of discussion, but it seemed like it was more heat
than fire.
Here are some links:

Draft AMD SEV-SNP CoRIM profile ready for comment
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/ISxHISBTwCd3Yb1NUMNJPFdcZIE/
Virtee computed SEV-SNP measurement in profile
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/MZlHM5qKAkbRmOS23iZ3lLHpdt4/
Follow-up CoRIM: Horn clauses
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/13WXReTESBgOjRLB9qdX7Jj1vIg/
The use case for TDX- and SEV-SNP-measured virtual firmware
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/WHFmzh-FRoJgWmmbv3t2_kw1UkA/
CoTS and CoRIM
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/HZQWJnJkVs0zWgRFpr9EIOyqbhs/
CoRIM Comments
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/cB8WnSM_2nyuDJ_pR_9d8JShiRc/

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

I think that a number of people were concerned that their use cases were not
covered, but in the end, it was just differences in terminology.

> 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 appeal threats.

> 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 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

Yes, Veraison is mentioned in an Implementation Section: Veraison, COCLI, and
there are some interoperability testing against PSA and DICE.
The implementation authors are pretty much all document authors.
The specification is quite complex/tedious however, and it would benefit from
another implementation.  That's not required for PS.

>Additional Reviews
>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.

Yes, CDDL, CBOR and COSE.
Many components of the document have already been reviewed by experts in
those areas, as detailed in the Contributors section.

>Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
>such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

media-types have not yet been reviewed.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module

No YANG module.
There is CDDL.

> 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 CDDL has rules in the Makefile to check it.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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?

It's needed.  It's well designed.
It's long.    There might be better ways to explain everything, but it's not
clear it would be better in a different presentation.

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

None.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

It's labelled as Standards Track.
The DT correctly labels it.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

> 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.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some issues, and
https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-corim/issues/481 opened.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

Yes, added to above issue.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

Only possible one was X.690, and it's available free.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

looks like RFC9334.

> 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.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
> If

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

The shepherd looked for Designated Expert instructions around the
Specification Required, and found none.  This comment was made.
It was also unclear why a 127 and 255 boundary was used, given CBOR integers
have more natural boundaries at 24 and 256 and 65536.

> 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).

Yes.

> 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.

The Specification Required sections do not yet contain instructions.