Secure Asset Transfer (SAT) Use Cases
draft-ietf-satp-usecases-09

# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-satp-usecases-06
CC @OR13

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-satp-usecases-06.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Discuss

### Boilerplate

```
  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
    match the current year
```

This is easily resolved by simply pushing a new version with no other changes.


## Comments

### Augmented EPP

```
823   Alice, who owns an SLD (say alice.com) issued by GoDaddy, wishes to
```

alice.com is currently a coffee website.

Consider making these examples more durable using `.example`. Instead of `.com`.

We should also make sure the REGEXT WG has a chance to review this section carefully.

I looked on both mailing lists:

- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sat/?q=regext
- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/?q=satp

I don't see much evidence of a discussion on this topic.

Chairs please coordinate with the REGEXT chairs to ensure this section gets a public review by both working groups.

Or if I missed this, please point me to the discussion.

### IPR

From the shepherd's writeup:

```
12. 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.

No. The proposed use cases are common contents, so there is no any risk of
IPR.
```

This response (the no part) does not make sense to me.

I would prefer a reference to a public mailing list, or an assertion that the reminder has been given to the authors.

## Nits

### Weird spacing issue

See the idnits file starting on line 100.

### Use of the term "we"

I know its common in academic writing, but its less common in IETF documents because its not clear who "we" is referring to... is it the WG? the authors? the IETF as a whole?

I would suggest avoiding the use of it, if possible.

# SATP-usecases Shepherd Write-Up

As required by [RFC 4858](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.txt) and requested by the SATP WG, this is the shepherd write-up of SATP-usecases document using the most current template I found at [here](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/shepherdwriteup-template/individual).



## Document History

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



  This document has been discussed in nearly all SATP sessions at past IETF meetings. On February 4, 2025, the chairs called on the working group to review the document and submit feedback. For the SATP-architecture document, the following responses were received:

  * 2 reviews with suggested changes (Hadarker and Willman)
  * 23 reviews with explicit support.

  Before that, there are [9](https://github.com/ietf-satp/draft-ietf-satp-usecases/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed) closed PRs related to reviews and fixes and [1](https://github.com/ietf-satp/draft-ietf-satp-usecases/issues/1) closed issue where several points were discussed and fixed.

 

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

 

  No. The consensus within the working group on this document was reached without any resolved comment.

 

3. 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.)

 

  None noticed.

 

4. 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)?

 

  This is not a protocol document, but one of the document authors is actively participating Hyperledger Cacti project as an open source. In addition, there were several reports of the SATP implementations such as Quant's distributed ledgers, South Korea's CBDC pilot system.

 

  ## Additional Reviews

5. 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.

 

  There is no known review from other WGs, but as an external organization - the Hyperledger Cacti project - members have provided several comments on actual use cases that have been discussed in the Hyperledger Cacti regular online meetings.

 

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

 

  SATP WG mambers working within various domains have provided several use cases over the world, so it seems no more required formal expert review in terms of the use cases contents.

 

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of 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 RFC 8342?

 

  The document does not contain a YANG module.

 

8. 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.

 

  According to https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-satp-usecases-06.txt (The latest version: 06), there were two errors on the validation result. It will be fixed soon.

 

  ## Document Shepherd Checks

9. 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?

 

  In [a github issue link](https://github.com/ietf-satp/draft-ietf-satp-usecases/issues/1), the shepherd and authors have discussed in-depth reviews on the document. The shephered confirm that it is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director now.

 

10. 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?

   

    There seemed no other reated IETF Areas that consider the blockchain interoperability domain in terms of use cases.

   

11. 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?

   

    Informational. This is an use cases document.

   

12. 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.

   

    No. The proposed use cases are common contents, so there is no any risk of IPR.

   

13. 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.

   

    No issue discovered. The total number of authors and editors is three.

   

14. 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.)

   

    \*\* The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section.

    \*\* There are 81 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
    one being 4 characters in excess of 72.

    It is note mentioning the document references have a lot of nits, undefined cites, unused cites, incorrect cites... For page conciseness, I leave the link [here](https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-satp-usecases-06.txt).

   

   

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

   

    None.

   

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

   

    Thers is no unavailable reference.

   

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 1) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them.

   

    No such cases

   

18. 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?

   

    The only normative IETF references are SATP-CORE and SATP-Archi which are under reviews of the IESG for publication.

   

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

   

    No.

   

20. 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 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).

   

    In the use cases document, the IANA considerations are not required.

   

21. 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.

   

    In the use cases document, any new IANA registry is not required.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there?
No, the document was not considered in any other WG

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document?
No. There is no documented controversy regarding the content of the document that would have obstructed adoption. The document progressed through regular WG processes, including multiple revisions and a WG Last Call.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No. There is no record of any appeal threats or indications of extreme discontent from WG members or external parties concerning this document.

For Protocol Documents

4. Are there existing implementations of the contents of the document?
Not applicable for this document

5. Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement?
Not applicable for this document

6. Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
Not applicable for this document

Additional Reviews

7. 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?
Yes. The SATP Use Cases document relates to efforts TIGRESS, due to overlapping concerns with digital asset transfer and tokenization. However TIGRESS is now closed due not being able to reach a consensus.

8. Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place.
No formal external WG reviews are recorded for this document.

9. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.

10. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of 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?
Not applicable.

11. Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342?
Not applicable.

12. 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.
Not applicable.

Document Shepherd Checks

13. 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?
Yes, having has successfully completed WG Last Call.

14. 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?
No area-specific issues have been documented.

15. 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?
The document requests Informational RFC status. This is appropriate, as the draft describes use cases, not protocol specifications or standards. The Datatracker correctly reflects this intent and categorization.

16. 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?
Not applicable

17. If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Not applicable.

18. 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. The document lists three authors: Venkatraman Ramakrishna, Thomas Hardjono, and Chunchi (Peter) Liu.

19. 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.)
As of revision –05, there are no outstanding nits of concern beyond minor editorial warnings.

20. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No.

21. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?
None. All references in the draft are freely available, including IETF drafts and public reports.

22. 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.
No.

23. 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 normative references exist.

24. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No. The document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

25. 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 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).
There is an IANA considerations section stating there are no IANA considerations.

26. 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.
Not applicable.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there?
No, the document was not considered in any other WG

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document?
No. There is no documented controversy regarding the content of the document that would have obstructed adoption. The document progressed through regular WG processes, including multiple revisions and a WG Last Call.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No. There is no record of any appeal threats or indications of extreme discontent from WG members or external parties concerning this document.

For Protocol Documents

4. Are there existing implementations of the contents of the document?
Not applicable for this document

5. Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement?
Not applicable for this document

6. Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
Not applicable for this document

Additional Reviews

7. 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?
Yes. The SATP Use Cases document relates to efforts TIGRESS, due to overlapping concerns with digital asset transfer and tokenization. However TIGRESS is now closed due not being able to reach a consensus.

8. Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place.
No formal external WG reviews are recorded for this document.

9. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.

10. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of 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?
Not applicable.

11. Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342?
Not applicable.

12. 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.
Not applicable.

Document Shepherd Checks

13. 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?
Yes, having has successfully completed WG Last Call.

14. 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?
No area-specific issues have been documented.

15. 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?
The document requests Informational RFC status. This is appropriate, as the draft describes use cases, not protocol specifications or standards. The Datatracker correctly reflects this intent and categorization.

16. 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?
Not applicable

17. If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Not applicable.

18. 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. The document lists three authors: Venkatraman Ramakrishna, Thomas Hardjono, and Chunchi (Peter) Liu.

19. 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.)
As of revision –05, there are no outstanding nits of concern beyond minor editorial warnings.

20. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No.

21. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?
None. All references in the draft are freely available, including IETF drafts and public reports.

22. 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.
No.

23. 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 normative references exist.

24. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No. The document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

25. 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 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).
There is an IANA considerations section stating there are no IANA considerations.

26. 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.
Not applicable.