An Architecture for Trustworthy and Transparent Digital Supply Chains
draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Roni Even for the GENART review.

** Idnits reports:
  == Unused Reference: 'RFC9334' is defined on line 1699, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

** Section 2.1
  Lastly, where data exchange underpins serious business decision-
  making, it is important to hold the producers of those data to a
  higher standard of accountability.

Defining the degree of accountability for producers is not in-scope for the charter.

** Section 2.2.3.  What about this use case is unique to an “autonomous vehicle”, as opposed to a “non-autonomous vehicle” or “any vehicle”?

** Section 4
  Reputable Issuers are thus incentivized to carefully review their
  Statements before signing them to produce Signed Statements.
  Similarly, reputable Transparency Services are incentivized to secure
  their Verifiable Data Structure, as any inconsistency can easily be
  pinpointed by any Auditor with read access to the Transparency
  Service.

What makes an issuer or transparency service “reputable”?

** Section 4
  The building blocks defined in SCITT are intended to support
  applications in any supply chain that produces or relies upon digital
  Artifacts, from the build and supply of software and IoT devices to
  advanced manufacturing and food supply.

This statement is outside the scope of the SCITT charter.

** Section 5.
  The SCITT architecture enables a loose federation of Transparency
  Services, by providing a set of common formats and protocols for
  issuing and registering Signed Statements and auditing Transparent
  Statements.

Where is the basis for this “federation” explained?  What does it mean to be “federated”?

** Section 5.1.1.1.  What is a “COSE-compatible trust anchor”?

** Section 6
  Once all the Envelope headers are set, an Issuer MUST use a standard
  COSE implementation to produce an appropriately serialized Signed
  Statement.

What is a “standard COSE implementation”, as opposed to using COSE?

** Section 9.4
  Issuers and Transparency Services MUST:
…
  *  rotate their keys in well-defined cryptoperiods, see
      [KEY-MANAGEMENT]

What makes a “cryptoperiod” well-defined?  How is it interoperable.  I wasn’t able to locate the relevant guidance in [KEY-MANAGEMENT] beyond statements of having a cryptoperiod.  Additionally, since [KEY-MANAGEMENT] is informative, the guidance for it can’t come from this document.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-20
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Amaury Chamayou for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus _and_ the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Jason Livingood, the IoT directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this iot-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-scitt-architecture-20-iotdir-telechat-livingood-2025-09-12/ (I have not seen any reply by the authors, this review is to be considered as a IETF Last Call one, i.e., comments MUST be addressed)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### IoT Directorate review

The IoT directorate review comments have not been addressed, and they should be considered as any other IETF Last Call comments. I am trusting the responsible AD to ensure that the comments will be addressed.

### Section 1

Suggest to split the very long paragraph one in 3 parts: problem to be solved, how to solve it, benefits. A graphical representation would also help to understand all the interactions (e.g., a simplified version of the nice Figure 2).

The reader has often to read a very long paragraph in this document, while perfectly correct, this does not help the reader.

### Section 2.1

Isn't it weird to have a generic section 2.1 included in a specific 'software-only' section 2 ?

BTW, thanks for using SVG graphics they are so much nicer in HTML rendering.

### Section 2.2.3

Is this short section about autonomous véhicle useful ?

### Section 3

Should "CWT" be expanded (and informational reference added) ?

### Section 5.1.1.1

s/ Transparency Service MUST, at a minimum,/ Transparency Service MUST/ ?

Please add a reference to `x5t` or define it. Same for `kid` used later in the text, especially since "kid" is a common English word.

### Section 5.1.3

It is unclear (at least to me but perhaps to other implementers) whether draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs is the only way to be implemented.

### Section 6

The list of references to other documents would benefit from adding a few words describing the reference.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for making this document. I have reviewed this from a transport layer perspective and have no technical comments.

I was confused by the text around word "notary", but note that I now see that US usage appears to have a different meaning to that with which I am accustomed. Maybe to be kind to others, it might be helpful just to omit the text trying to parallel this with a human notary?

The text also says: "such as Certificate Transparency", could a (cross) reference be added to explain what that is?

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-20
CC @ekline

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

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S3

* I can't help but feel that "Transparency Statement" is a slightly better
  term than the somewhat-generic-sounding "Transparent Statement", but
  I'm guessing this is well past the stage at which terminology can be
  changed.

  Just an observation.

### S9.4.2

* What should an Issuer or Transparency Service do when a key is
  compromised beyond "communicate"?

  Should it, for example, establish new credentials and replay all
  signing operations with the new key(s)?

## Nits

### S2.1

* "Taking the type and structure of all statements about digital and
  products into account might not be possible."

  s/digital and products/digital products/ I think improves readability.

[Ballot comment]
Given the varying functions performed by [notaries in different legal systems](https://edictsandstatutes.com/notaries-in-different-cultures/#The_Role_of_Notaries_in_Diverse_Legal_Systems), the comparison to a notarial stamp might be more confusing than illuminating for a global audience. For example, in the US, a notary certifies the identity of the signer without verifying the accuracy of the document being signed ("confirm a policy is met before recording the statement").

In Section 2.1, please expand and/or link to a definition of the term "DevSecOps".

I appreciate the thorough Terminology section. The definition of Non-equivocation uses the capitalized term "Single Verifiable Data Structure"; while I see "Verifiable Data Structure" defined, there's no definition of the capitalized Single or of SVDS as a term. Should this be "single Verifiable Data Structure" or is an additional definition needed?

In Figure 2, I'm unclear why there's a line from Issuer's "verify" to the Transparency Service. Wouldn't that go only into Verify Transparent Statement?

The claims being used (`iss`, `sub`) are from RFC8392. That's referenced to define the term "claim", but isn't given as a reference for these specific claim types. Please expand on that reference so people can follow that thread.

Similarly, there's no introduction to `x5t`, `x5chain`, or `kid`. From context, I assumed they came from COSE_Sign1 in RFC 9052, but I don't find them there. Can you put pointers as appropriate? If this document is defining them, be clearer about that.

In Section 9.5, what does "normatively signed" mean? If it means the media type requires a valid signature, consider "which include a signature and therefore...."

In Section 9.7, "blame" may be a more loaded word than you want. I think this is trying to make a statement about attribution, not fault.

===NITS FOLLOW===
Section 2.1, "cyber security-based" => "cyber-security-based"
Section 3, "for implementations" => "for implementations."
Section 5.1.4 ends with a sentence fragment. Should this be part of the previous sentence?
Section 6, no commas around the parentheses in the last paragraph
Section 7.1, no comma after "[STD96]"
Section 9.2, "unintentionally," => "unintentionally;"
Section 9.5 and multiple Figures, "COSE Sign1" => "COSE_Sign1"?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

I have a couple of comments:

1) I could not find a reference to RFC 9334. Please remove from references if unused.

2) I am not following the intent of section 10.1. If IANA has already done the allocation via another document then it is not required to be mentioned in the IANA consideration section of this document. That codepoint can be directly referenced as is being done in section 7. Section 10.1 can be deleted.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Henk, Antoine, Cédric, Yogesh, and Steve,

Thank you for the effort put into this very well-written document.

Please find below some comments:

# (meta comments) Operationalization matters

Many questions popped up when reading the document (e.g., how the various entities know/discover each other, how authentication is done, how bootstrapping is made, what registration actually means, how the receipts are retrieved, how collection is made, how the latest version of a statement on a specific component is made available rather than consuming a stale one, what if a TS is not available anymore, etc.

As this is an architecture document (but not only), I was expecting some of these details to be grouped in a single place (even with a statement, these are out of scope).

# On scalability and flexibility

CURRENT (Abstract):
  This document proposes a
  scalable architecture for single-issuer signed statement transparency
  applicable to any supply chain.  It ensures flexibility,
  interoperability between different transparency services, and
  compliance with various auditing procedures and regulatory

(1) It is not clear to me how what means “scalable architecture” here. Scalability can be approach from various angles and I’m not sure which aspects is being focused on here. I’d prefer we back any claim here with a discussion on that in the main text.

(2) Likewise, what does flexibility mean in this specific context? For example, there are some constraints imposed on how registration policies may be updated, etc. I think that exercising the architecture and playing with various contexts (complex component dependencies, other uses) would be needed first.

(3) Idem, maybe I’m misreading this but what aspect in the spec you have in mind with “interoperability between different transparency services”?

(4) nits

* s/proposes/defines

* Not easy at this stage to digest what is a “transparency service”.

# How domain is defined in this specific context?

CURRENT (S.1):
  As these messages provide the foundation of
  any transparency service implementation for global and cross-domain
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
  application interoperability, they are based on complementary COSE
  specifications, mainly [I-D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs].

# Figure 1: These are still possible attacks. I don’t think we sat  that SCITT will nullify those. Right?

# DevSecops

CURRENT (S.2.1):
  DevSecOps often depends on third-party and open-source software.

I know what it means, but do we have an authoritative ref to cite for DevSecOps?

# CWT_Claims

CURRENT (S.3):
      In SCITT
      Statements and Receipts, the iss CWT Claim is a member of the COSE
      header parameter 15: CWT_Claims within the protected header of a
      COSE Envelope. 

(1) I don’t find CWT_Claims in the base COSE spec.

(2) I guess we meant what is defined in RFC9597. If so, please add a pointer to that RFC.

(3) Also, I think this and other occurrences in the document should be “CWT-Claims” to comply with 9597.

# Receipts

CURRENT (S.3):
  Receipt:  a cryptographic proof that a Signed Statement is included
      in the Verifiable Data Structure.  See
      [I-D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs] for implementations
      Receipts are signed proofs of verifiable data-structure
      properties.  The types of Receipts MUST support inclusion proofs
      and MAY support other proof types, such as consistency proofs.

(1) I don’t parse the second sentence.

(2) What is a “type of receipt”? Failed to find which part of draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs this is referring to.

(3) Weird to have the normative requirement in a terminology section.

# SCITT instance

CURRENT (S.4):
  A SCITT instance is referred to as a Transparency Service.

Isn’t SCITT about the full architecture?

Also, I don’t see “ SCITT instance” used anywhere in the document.

# Mixing state and roles

Figure 2 is mixing state, entities, and so on. Also the direction of arrows is confusing to me. For example, I expect sign and verify to act in distinct directions.

No clear to me how to read this diagram.

# Concretely

CURRENT (S.5.1):
  Transparency Services MUST feature a Verifiable Data Structure. 

What does concretely mean?

# Maintain

CURRENT (S.5.1.1):
  Transparency Services MUST maintain Registration
  Policies.

What does this concretely imply?

# is there any value to notify the change to any other entity in the architecture when such event happens/planned?

CURRENT (S.5.1.1.2):
  The operator of a Transparency Service MAY update the Registration
  Policy or the trust anchors of a Transparency Service at any time.

# Enough information

CURRENT (S.5.1.1.2):
  Transparency Services MUST ensure that for any Signed Statement they
  register, enough information is made available to Auditors to
  reproduce the Registration checks that were defined by the
  Registration Policies at the time of Registration.

Can we list a minimum information to be logged and made available?

# Standard COSE implem

CURRENT (S.6):
  Once all the Envelope headers are set, an Issuer MUST use a standard
  COSE implementation to produce an appropriately serialized Signed
  Statement.

That is?

Cheers,
Med

Closed request for Telechat review by HTTPDIR with state 'Withdrawn': Being conservative, I was following up on the review by Darrel...  I didn't realize that the authors had pretty much removed all of that text.  Apologies.

the registration request explicitly requests IDs in the 0-255 range, without providing any reasoning why this range needs to be chosen.
There is also no use of the content-format specified over CoAP described anywhere in this document - so a reason for requiring a short (0-255) Content-Format ID is also not clear from the protocol's usage.

If there's no strong reason for a short ID I would suggest to update the document to request from the 256-9999 range, which is the usual/default choice for drafts going through the IETF review process.
Of course it could be that a short ID is required to minimize the COSE object size - e.g. if the CoAP Content-Format ID happens to be encoded in a COSE header parameter, or tag, or so. I'm speculating here. If this is the case then the WG/authors should motivate this request better. This could be done either in the draft, or in this email thread (no preference for me).

The request itself looks correct - it's only the range that looks (?) incorrect.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-18. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the COSE Header Parameters registry in the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/

the existing temporary assignment of:

Name: receipts
Label: 394
Value Type: array
Value Registry:
Description: Priority ordered sequence of CBOR encoded Receipts

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

two new registrations will be made as follows:

Name: statement+cose
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: receipt+cose
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the CoAP Content-Formats registry in the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Content Type: application/scitt-statement+cose
Content Coding:
Media Type:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Content Type: application/scitt-receipt+cose
Content Coding:
Media Type:
ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the authors have suggested IDs of 103 and 104 for these registrations.

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-08-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: amchamay@microsoft.com, debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-scitt-architecture@ietf.org, scitt-chairs@ietf.org, scitt@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An Architecture for Trustworthy and Transparent Digital Supply Chains) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Supply Chain Integrity,
Transparency, and Trust WG (scitt) to consider the following document: - 'An
Architecture for Trustworthy and Transparent Digital Supply Chains'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-08-29. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Traceability in supply chains is a growing security concern.  While
  verifiable data structures have addressed specific issues, such as
  equivocation over digital certificates, they lack a universal
  architecture for all supply chains.  This document proposes a
  scalable architecture for single-issuer signed statement transparency
  applicable to any supply chain.  It ensures flexibility,
  interoperability between different transparency services, and
  compliance with various auditing procedures and regulatory
  requirements.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Shepherd Writeup for ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by the SCITT WG.

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
the document?

No.

### 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.

### 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)?

I am aware of three implementations of the contents of the document, from Datatrails [0], Tradeverifyed [1] (formerly Transmute Industries), and Microsoft [2], all Open Source. Other parties have expressed an interest in implementing it as well, for example Dick Brooks, from Business Cyber Guardian [3].

[0] https://www.datatrails.ai
[1] https://tradeverifyd.com
[2] https://www.microsoft.com
[3] https://businesscyberguardian.com

## 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, the contents of the document closely interact with COSE, and COSE Receipts in particular, in the scope of the COSE Working Group. The document would likely benefit from their review, which I have requested.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document contains two requests for IANA Media Type allocations that require formal expert review.
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. It contains CDDL schema snippets, which have been checked with the cddlc tool.

### 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 document contains EDN and CDDL snippets, which have been reviewed by the Working Group and by the cddlc validation tool.

## 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?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

### 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 was a substantial amount of discussion around Security, some of which were resolved by using a known signing format with provision for agility (COSE). Discussion took place around steps that service operators could take to secure their instances, and converged on a clear, minimal text.
The definition of the bytes to be signed was discussed extensively, and the tradeoffs and benefits of including unprotected headers weighed at length, before consensus was reached. Statement identification and references were also discussed, but consensus could not be reached, and it was agreed that it may be addressed in a separate, later document.

### 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 intended type is Proposed Standard, because the document describes a data format for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language. Implementations have moved past the experimental stage. The Datatracker does reflect the correct RFC status.

### 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.

I have obtained confirmation by email from all authors that they have fulfilled their IPR disclosure obligations. To the best of my knowledge, no disclosure is necessary for this document.

### 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.

All authors, editors and contributors have confirmed in email their willingness to be listed as such.

### 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 no remaining idnits, they have all been addressed.

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

No.

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

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the community for over a year.

### 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.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### 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?

Yes, there are normative references to I-D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs (COSE WG), which was delayed by re-chartering, and on which feedback from a first round of reviews is being addressed.
There is also a normative reference to I-D.draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi (SCITT WG), which is waiting for submission to the IESG.

### 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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

### 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).

No new registries are created. The Media Type registry is clearly identified, the Media Type assignments are being submitted.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments.
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.

This document does not establish any new registries.

# Shepherd Writeup for ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by the SCITT WG.

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
the document?

No.

### 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.

### 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)?

I am aware of three implementations of the contents of the document, from Datatrails [0], Tradeverifyed [1] (formerly Transmute Industries), and Microsoft [2], all Open Source. Other parties have expressed an interest in implementing it as well, for example Dick Brooks, from Business Cyber Guardian [3].

[0] https://www.datatrails.ai
[1] https://tradeverifyd.com
[2] https://www.microsoft.com
[3] https://businesscyberguardian.com

## 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, the contents of the document closely interact with COSE, and COSE Receipts in particular, in the scope of the COSE Working Group. The document would likely benefit from their review, which I have requested.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document contains two requests for IANA Media Type allocations that require formal expert review.
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. It contains CDDL schema snippets, which have been checked with the cddlc tool.

### 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 document contains EDN and CDDL snippets, which have been reviewed by the Working Group and by the cddlc validation tool.

## 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?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

### 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 was a substantial amount of discussion around Security, some of which were resolved by using a known signing format with provision for agility (COSE). Discussion took place around steps that service operators could take to secure their instances, and converged on a clear, minimal text.
The definition of the bytes to be signed was discussed extensively, and the tradeoffs and benefits of including unprotected headers weighed at length, before consensus was reached. Statement identification and references were also discussed, but consensus could not be reached, and it was agreed that it may be addressed in a separate, later document.

### 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 intended type is Proposed Standard, because the document describes a data format for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language. Implementations have moved past the experimental stage. The Datatracker does reflect the correct RFC status.

### 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.

I have obtained confirmation by email from all authors that they have fulfilled their IPR disclosure obligations. To the best of my knowledge, no disclosure is necessary for this document.

### 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.

All authors, editors and contributors have confirmed in email their willingness to be listed as such.

### 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 no remaining idnits, they have all been addressed.

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

No.

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

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the community for over a year.

### 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.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### 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?

Yes, there are normative references to I-D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs (COSE WG), which was delayed by re-chartering, and on which feedback from a first round of reviews is being addressed.
There is also a normative reference to I-D.draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi (SCITT WG), which is waiting for submission to the IESG.

### 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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

### 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).

No new registries are created. The Media Type registry is clearly identified, the Media Type assignments are being submitted.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments.
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.

This document does not establish any new registries.

# Shepherd Writeup for ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by the SCITT WG.

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
the document?

No.

### 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.

### 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)?

I am aware of three implementations of the contents of the document, from Datatrails, Transmute Industries, and Microsoft, all Open Source. Other parties have expressed an interest in implementing it as well, for example Dick Brooks, from Business Cyberguardian.

## 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, the contents of the document closely interact with COSE, and COSE Receipts in particular, in the scope of the COSE Working Group. The document would likely benefit from their review, which I have requested.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document contains two requests for IANA Media Type allocations that require formal expert review.
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. It contains CDDL schema snippets, which have been checked with the cddlc tool.

### 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 document contains EDN and CDDL snippets, which have been reviewed by the Working Group and by the cddlc validation tool.

## 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?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

### 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 was a substantial amount of discussion around Security, some of which were resolved by using a known signing format with provision for agility (COSE). Discussion took place around steps that service operators could take to secure their instances, and converged on a clear, minimal text.
The definition of the bytes to be signed was discussed extensively, and the tradeoffs and benefits of including unprotected headers weighed at length, before consensus was reached. Statement identification and references were also discussed, but consensus could not be reached, and it was agreed that it may be addressed in a separate, later document.

### 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 intended type is Proposed Standard, because the document describes a data format for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language. Implementations have moved past the experimental stage. The Datatracker does reflect the correct RFC status.

### 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.

I have obtained confirmation by email from all authors that they have fulfilled their IPR disclosure obligations. To the best of my knowledge, no disclosure is necessary for this document.

### 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.

All authors, editors and contributors have confirmed in email their willingness to be listed as such.

### 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 no remaining idnits, they have all been addressed.

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

No.

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

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the community for over a year.

### 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.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### 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?

Yes, there are normative references to I-D.draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs (COSE WG), which was delayed by re-chartering, and on which feedback from a first round of reviews is being addressed.
There is also a normative reference to I-D.draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi (SCITT WG), which is waiting for submission to the IESG.

### 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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

### 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).

No new registries are created. The Media Type registry is clearly identified, the Media Type assignments are being submitted.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments.
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.

This document does not establish any new registries.

This document has had significantly broad review and participation in drafting it.  The chairs are still giving 3-weeks to do last call on this document and progress it out of the WG.  If you haven't already filed your git issue and submitted your pull request on this draft, now is the time!!

Chris and Jon

Request for Early review by HTTPDIR Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Darrel Miller. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.