As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
This document is targeted to become a Proposed Standard. I think this is
approprite because it specifies RFC 2119 type requirements on deployments,
as well as requirements on documents that will document dates for different
phases of an algorithm migration event.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
This document specifies the process that Certification Authorities
(CAs) and Relying Parties (RPs) participating in the Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) will need to follow to transition to a new
(and probably cryptographically stronger) algorithm set. The process
is expected to be completed in a time scale of months or years.
Consequently, no emergency transition is specified. The transition
procedure defined in this document supports only a top-down migration
(parent migrates before children).
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
During WGLC there was some prolonged discussion on whether IETF is the right
body for publishing a set of milestones for different phases of algorithm
migration and which other entities should be involved (IANA, NROs, etc.).
The issue was discussed and the text was improved in this area.
There was also an extended discussion during WGLC on whether top-down migration
is the right way to do algorithm migration. I think the WG still supports
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
This document is not specifying a protocol, so there are no implementations.
However considering past history in the Security Area with algorithm
migration in different protocols, such migration event is quite likely,
if RPKI ends up being used for any significant period of time.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Alexey Melnikov is the Document Shepherd.
Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
I performed my usual WG chair review which typically includes:
1) making sure that the document is clear
2) check for missing references and for their type (Normative versa Informative)
3) make sure that the IANA consideration matches the document
4) verify ABNF/XML if any (none in this case)
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
I don't think so. Security Area aspects are certainly covered well by this
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Each author confirmed that they have no IPR disclosure to make on the document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosure was filed on the document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document has solid WG consensus behind it.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)
Some discussions on the mailing list were heated at times, but there was
no threat of appeal stated.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
being 23 characters in excess of 72.
== The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but
does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list.
I think both of these can be fixed by RFC Editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document doesn't contain any MIB/media type/URI registration,
so no review of this type is needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
All Normative references are to published RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
There are no Down-Refs.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The document correctly lists no action for IANA.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
This document doesn't create new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The document doesn't contain and code in a formal language.