Supply Chain Integrity, Transparency, and Trust (SCITT) Reference APIs
draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-10

[Ballot comment]
The document has improved since I was WG Chair for this document.  I thank all the feedback provided to the authors and the authors hard work for the improvements.  Since I was WG Chair during the development up to submission of this document, I recuse.

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for your work on this document. It's clear that you've taken a lot of care with the interaction with HTTP and incorporated much of Darrel Miller's HTTP Directorate review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-scitt-architecture-01-httpdir-early-miller-2023-04-24/). I'm sorry we didn't succeed in getting you a Last Call review following up on that.

# IESG review of draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-10

CC @MikeBishop

## Discuss

### Section 2.4.1, paragraph 2
```
    If the client requests (GET) the location when the registration is
    still in progress, the TS MAY return a 302 Found, as in this non-
    normative example:
```
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of a 302 redirect from a resource to
itself. Redirects to the same URI don't really fit into any of the categories
described in Section 15.4 of RFC 9110.

Fundamentally, I think you need to decide whether this resource represents the
operation or the result. If it represents the operation, it should return a 200
and a description of the operation's status (complete, in-progress, failed,
etc.); completed operations will include the URL of the result or might redirect
there.

If it represents the result itself, it won't exist (404) until the operation
completes.

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 2.2, paragraph 12
```
    If the kid values used by the service ({kid_value} in the request
    above) are not URL-safe, the resource MUST accept the base64url
    encoding of the kid value, without padding, in the URL instead.
```
Does this imply that clients determine the request format based on whether the
kid_value they're querying is URL-safe? Can a client infer whether *all* kid
values are URL-safe based on examining one kid?

I'd be inclined to make this say either that resources must exist for both the
raw kid value (if URL-safe) and the base64url-encoded value, or that a server
publishes somewhere whether it commits to URL-safe kid values.

### Section 2.3.2, paragraph 1

I would have expected 202 here, but 303 also seems defensible. No
change necessarily required, just review the definitions of each to be sure.

### Section 2.4.1, paragraph 3
```
    The location MAY be temporary, and the service may not serve a
    relevant response at this Location after a reasonable delay.
```
There are several instances of this sentence; I'd suggest a slight rephrase
throughout to
ensure "may not serve" is read as permission not to serve rather than a
prohibition on serving. "...the server might remove the resource after a
reasonable delay."

### Missing references

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
`[RFC9162]` and `[RFC7231]`.

(But note that 7231 is obsoleted by 9110, so you probably want to update that
text rather than adding the reference.)

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 9
```
-    The Transparency Service MAY stop returning at that resource the keys
-                                                ---------------------
```

### Section 6.1.1, paragraph 2
```
    URI suffix: scitt-keys Change controller: IETF Specification
    document(s): RFCthis Status: Permanent Related information:
    [I-D.draft-ietf-scitt-architecture]
```
I suspect this is not the formatting you intended for this list.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 2.3.1, paragraph 5
```
"Signed Statement contained a non supported algorithm" } HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Re
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This expression is usually spelled with a hyphen.

#### Section 2.4.1, paragraph 7
```
"Signed Statement contained a non supported algorithm" } HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Re
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This expression is usually spelled with a hyphen.

#### Section 2.4.5, paragraph 1
```
f authorization or preventing denial of service attacks. If Authentication i
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
It appears that hyphens are missing.

#### Section 2.5.1, paragraph 3
```
al of Service Attacks While denial of service attacks are very hard to defen
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
It appears that hyphens are missing.

#### Section 2.5.2, paragraph 4
```
limited risk to eavesdropping. Nonetheless transparency may mean 'within a
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Nonetheless".

[Ballot comment]
Hi Henk, Jon, and Antoine,

Thank you for the changes made in -10 [1]. These address all comments in my previous ballot [2]. Much appreciated.

# I have one minor comment for -10: RFC8792 has this MUST:

"7.1.  Folded Structure

  Text content that has been folded as specified by this strategy MUST
  adhere to the following structure.

7.1.1.  Header

  The header is two lines long.

  The first line is the following 36-character string; this string MAY
  be surrounded by any number of printable characters.  This first line
  cannot itself be folded.

  NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
"

However, many of the snippets with folding in the draft do not have the required surrounding note such as in

CURRENT:

  HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
  Content-Type: application/concise-problem-details+cbor

  {
    / title /        -1: \
            "Bad Signature Algorithm",
    / detail /        -2: \
            "Signed Statement contained a non supported algorithm"
  }

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-09&url2=draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-10&difftype=--html

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scitt/aynYWkU1mIR1CD8YF5YHXi7S7jI/

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-10
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), 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.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

### Section 2

Is there any constrain in which language is the `human-readable` ? MUST it be US English ? It may be implicit due to HTTP protocol though, then I will obviously stand corrected.

### Use of SHOULD

There are several `SHOULD` in the document that could easily be a `MUST`. E.g., section 2 `Clients SHOULD treat`, section 2.1 `SHOULD include Accept: application/cbor in the request`. So, either change the `SHOULD` in `MUST` or provide guidance when the `SHOULD` can be bypassed. Currently, it is really ambiguous.

See also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Med's DISCUSS

I support Med Boucadair's DISCUSS point about the apparent conflict between `MUST` and `MAY`.

### Abstract

s/This document describes/This document *specifies*/ as this I-D aims for PS.

### Section 1

`The following resources MUST be implemented for conformance to this specification`, unsure whether the IETF is in the business of defining "conformance". Also, as all the refered sections are normative, this paragraph is fully redundant.

### Section 2

In the HTML rendering, it is unclear whether `* title:` is part of the numbered list just above. It also needs some leading text.

[Ballot comment]
This document does not spoecify a tranport mechanism, and I have transport review comments.

Please find the following (non-blocking) COMMENTS:

- There are two sentences that follow one another, and do not read correctly, please consider combining these:

"Section 2 of [RFC7515] specifies Base64Url encoding as follows: [RFC7515] specifies Base64url encoding as follows:"

Gorry

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Henk, Jon, and Antoine,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification.

Thanks to Nick Buraglio for the OPSDIR review and the authors for addressing the review in -09.

Please find below some points for DISCUSSion:

# Lack of clear characterization of “Normative requirements” of SCITT

CURRENT:
  This document defines a REST API that supports the normative
  requirements …

## It is not clear what are the normative requirements we are rereferring to. I failed to find in the document the mapping with specific parts in the architectures.

## Assuming we characterize those, is this spec covering all “requirements” or a subset? Are there requirements that are not normative?

## Some text is needed to help walk through the intended goal and the current specification.

# NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5

CURRENT:
  Consistent with key management best practices
  described in [NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5] (Section 5.3.4), retired keys
  SHOULD remain available for as long as any Receipts signed with them

## Which part of that section are we referring to? I see some few normative uses in that section but not a 1:1 mapping with the language used here.

## That reference is what is present to back this reco and its citation strengthens the “best practice” claim, this is normative IMO.

## There are operational implications for storing such keys that should be called out. Likewise, there may be operational disruption if that SHOULD was not followed. Idem please consider flagging this in the spec.

# MAY conflicts with MUST

CURRENT:
  The following expected errors MUST be returned when the corresponding
  conditions are encountered.  Implementations MAY return other errors,
  so long as they are valid [RFC9290] objects.

Or

  The following expected errors MUST be returned when the corresponding
  conditions are encountered.  Implementations MAY return other errors,
  so long as they are valid [RFC9290] objects.

Unless I'm missing something subtle, these constructs are to be adjusted.

# At least RFC9921 is normative

CURRENT:
  [RFC9921] defines COSE header parameters for including [RFC3161] timestamp
  tokens that MAY be used for this purpose.

Please note that per IESG Statement: Normative and Informative References, “Even references that are relevant only for optional features must be classified as normative if they meet the above conditions for normative references.”

# Mix of IANA considerations and specification

Section 5.1.1 (Resource Definition) provides normative behavior that is not adequate IMO in an IANA section, only the registration belongs there. Please consider moving that section to the main body.

[Ballot comment]
# Please expand SCITT in the title.

# Compliance with BCP56

Please check the use of normative language (and requiring some status codes) as I’m afraid some is not compliant with the guidance in Section 4.6 of RFC9205.

# Operational Considerations

CURRENT:
  In the absence of this header field, this document does not
  specify a minimum.

CURRENT:
  If a client is polling for an in-progress registration too frequently
  then the Transparency Service MAY, in addition to implementing rate
  limiting

This is left to implems. However, there are operational impacts if clients adopts an aggressive retry time. I suggest to discuss those, the need to configure server with a minimum, and a policy for rate-limit queries per client in a NEW Operational Considerations Section.

# Conformance and Resources

CURRENT:
  SCITT Reference APIs (SCRAPI) defines HTTP resources for a
  Transparency Service using COSE ([RFC9052]).  The following resources
  MUST be implemented for conformance to this specification:

  *  Registration of Signed Statements

  *  Issuance and resolution of Receipts

  *  Discovery of Transparency Service Keys

## Consider adding cross references to correlate each item with the section(s) that define those.

## Also, is that MUST same as what is in Section 2

CURRENT:
  The following HTTP resources MUST be implemented to enable
  conformance to this specification.

If so, please keep MUST in one single place.

# Need some motivation for some recommendations

CURRENT:
  It is RECOMMENDED to use COSE Key Thumbprint, as defined in [RFC9679]
  as the mechanism to assign a kid to Transparency Service keys.

Adding some justification/explanation of the recommendation would be helpful for those who will deploy to make their decision.

# Inappropriate use of normative language, please fix

OLD:
  Registration requests MAY fail, 

NEW:
  Registration requests may fail, 

Cheers,
Med

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Well-Known URIs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

URI Suffix: scitt-keys
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Status: permanent
Change Controller: IETF
Related Information: See [I-D.draft-ietf-scitt-architecture]
Date Registered: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Date Modified:

As this document requests a registration 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 this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action 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 action 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

In general this is registrable, but I note that the specification doesn't have any formal definition of the well-known location -- e.g., it doesn't specify what media type(s) are supported, how to interact with the resource, what it's semantics are. All that appears in the document is the registration template and what look like two examples.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-04-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: amchamay@microsoft.com, debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi@ietf.org, scitt-chairs@ietf.org, scitt@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (SCITT Reference APIs) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Supply Chain Integrity,
Transparency, and Trust WG (scitt) to consider the following document: -
'SCITT Reference APIs'
  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 2026-04-13. 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


  This document describes a REST API that supports the normative
  requirements of the SCITT Architecture.




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



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

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

## 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], and Microsoft [2], all Open Source.

[0] https://www.datatrails.ai
[1] https://tradeverifyd.com
[2] https://www.microsoft.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 document defines an HTTP API and would benefit from a review from the
HTTPDIR and SECDIR WG, which the chairs have requested in the datatracker.

### 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 a request for a Well-Known URI Registry allocation that
requires formal expert review according to RFC8615.

### 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.

### 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 HTTP requests, some of which include a CBOR EDN body.
They have been reviewed manually.

## 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?

Security Considerations have been systematically filled in according to RFC3552
and bearing https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues in mind.

No known common issues are believed to be unaddressed.

### 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 service
API for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language.
Some 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 received confirmation by email from both authors that they have fulfilled
their IPR disclosure obligations.

### 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 and contributors have confirmed to me in email their willingness
to be listed as such. I have reached out to one person who has contributed
in the past, but have not heard back for a couple of weeks now. I will propose
that they are added if they reply.

### 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.)

No nits remain.

### 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?

No.

### 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 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-scrapi

## 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], and Microsoft [2], all Open Source.

[0] https://www.datatrails.ai
[1] https://tradeverifyd.com
[2] https://www.microsoft.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 document defines an HTTP API and would benefit from a review from the
HTTPDIR and SECDIR WG, which the chairs have requested in the datatracker.

### 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 a request for a Well-Known URI Registry allocation that
requires formal expert review according to RFC8615.

### 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.

### 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 HTTP requests, some of which include a CBOR EDN body.
They have been reviewed manually.

## 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?

Security Considerations have been systematically filled in according to RFC3552
and bearing https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues in mind.

No known common issues are believed to be unaddressed.

### 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 service
API for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language.
Some 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 received confirmation by email from both authors that they have fulfilled
their IPR disclosure obligations.

### 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 and contributors have confirmed to me 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.)

The following nits remain and must be addressed:

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
    one being 19 characters in excess of 72.


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc' is defined on line
    1120, but no explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2046' is defined on line 1127, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6838' is defined on line 1132, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-13

### 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?

No.

### 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 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-scrapi

## 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], and Microsoft [2], all Open Source.

[0] https://www.datatrails.ai
[1] https://tradeverifyd.com
[2] https://www.microsoft.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 document defines an HTTP API and would benefit from a review from the
HTTPDIR and SECDIR WG, which the chairs have requested in the datatracker.

### 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 a request for a Well-Known URI Registry allocation that
requires formal expert review according to RFC8615.

### 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.

### 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 HTTP requests, some of which include a CBOR EDN body.
They have been reviewed manually.

## 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?

Security Considerations have been systematically filled in according to RFC3552
and bearing https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues in mind.

No known common issues are believed to be unaddressed.

### 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 service
API for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language.
Some 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 received confirmation by email from both authors that they have fulfilled
their IPR disclosure obligations.

### 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 and contributors have confirmed to me 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.)

The following nits remain and must be addressed:

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
    one being 19 characters in excess of 72.


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc' is defined on line
    1120, but no explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2046' is defined on line 1127, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6838' is defined on line 1132, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-13

### 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?

No.

### 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-scrapi

## 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], and Microsoft [2], all Open Source.

[0] https://www.datatrails.ai
[1] https://tradeverifyd.com
[2] https://www.microsoft.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 document defines an HTTP API and would benefit from a review from the
HTTPDIR WG, which I have requested by email.

### 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 a request for a Well-Known URI Registry allocation that
requires formal expert review according to RFCRFC8615.

### 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.

### 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 HTTP requests, some of which include a CBOR EDN body.
They have been reviewed manually.

## 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?

Security Considerations have been systematically filled in according to RFC3552
and bearing https://wiki.ietf.org/group/sec/typicalSECareaissues in mind.

No known common issues are believed to be unaddressed.

### 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 service
API for the purpose of interoperability, and uses BCP14 language.
Some 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 requested confirmation by email from all authors that they have fulfilled
their IPR disclosure obligations, and will update this document when I hear back.

### 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.

I have requested confirmation by email from all authors and contributors that they
are willing to be listed as such, and will update this document when I hear back.

### 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 following nits remain and must be addressed:

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
    one being 19 characters in excess of 72.


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc' is defined on line
    1120, but no explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2046' is defined on line 1127, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6838' is defined on line 1132, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-oauth-sd-jwt-vc-13

### 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?

No.

### 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.

Proposed Standard as we know this will evolve and grow in the coming short years, but the current content is a strong baseline and has undergone significant review and testing.

While there are still some bits to be finished off, we would like to start WGLC and get the necessary feedback to start to bring this document to publication.

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.