Skip to main content

Secure Asset Transfer Protocol (SATP) Core
draft-ietf-satp-core-17

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, andy@hxr.us, draft-ietf-satp-core@ietf.org, liuchunchi@huawei.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, sat@ietf.org, satp-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Secure Asset Transfer Protocol (SATP) Core' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-satp-core-17.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Secure Asset Transfer Protocol (SATP) Core'
  (draft-ietf-satp-core-17.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Secure Asset Transfer Protocol Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Andy Newton and Charles Eckel.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-satp-core/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This memo describes the Secure Asset Transfer Protocol (SATP) for
   digital assets.  SATP is a protocol operating between two gateways
   that conducts the transfer of a digital asset from one gateway to
   another, each representing their corresponding digital asset
   networks.  The protocol establishes a secure channel between the
   endpoints and implements a 2-phase commit (2PC) to ensure the
   properties of transfer atomicity, consistency, isolation and
   durability.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the 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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Peter Chunchi Liu. The
   Responsible Area Director is Andy Newton.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note