An Architecture for Trustworthy and Transparent Digital Supply Chains
draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-14

# 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.