Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

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?

   The document is intended as a Standards Track RFC.

   The document adds an additional algorithm to the RPKI, updating
   RFC6485 (as recently updated).  

   The algorithm defined in this document is used in BGPsec.  At time 
   of writing, there is an update to RFC6485 that has been approved 
   for publication.  RFC6485 and its update define algorithms that
   are used in RPKI for origin validation, where this document defines
   algorithms that are used in path validation by BGPsec.

   The title page says "Intended status: Standards Track".

(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:

Technical Summary

   This document specifies the algorithms, algorithm parameters,
   asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size and signature format used
   in BGPsec (Border Gateway Protocol Security).  This document updates
   the Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource
   Public Key Infrastructure (draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis, recently
   approved for publication).

Working Group Summary

  This document has had consistent interest from the working group.
  The document passed wglc and then waited for publication until 
  the BGPsec protocol was mature.  In the meantime, it absorbed some
  changes from rfc6485bis that were made during IESG consideration. 

Document Quality

  There is one known implementation of the generation of certificates 
  that use the algorithm and key format defined in this draft.  There are 
  two known implementations of BGPsec that use the algorithms defined
  in this draft.  All are open source implementations.


  Document Shepherd: Sandra Murphy
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana

(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
the IESG.

   The document shepherd has reviewed the current document, and many
   previous versions over the course of its progress.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   The shepherd has no concerns about the level of reviews.  

(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
took place.

   There is no need for review from any particular or broader perspective.

(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
concerns here.

   The shepherd has no concerns or issues with this document and saw
   no unaddressed concerns in the working group discussions.

(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.

    All authors have confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

    Two IPR disclosures have been filed against this draft by
    Certicom Corporation (the second is an update of the first).
    The filing declares that the Patent Holder will make a license available 
    on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, under
    conditions of reciprocity, etc.  See

    After the filing, the IPR was discussed at the IETF86 meeting.
    The meeting discussion mentioned that there are published references
    that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those 
    mentioned in RFC6090.  RFC6090 notes that its descriptions
    "may be useful for implementing the fundamental algorithms without 
    using any of the  specialized methods that were developed in 
    following years."

    The working group had previously considered work that had IPR 
    filings, and had concluded that this was not the desired path but
    was not forbidden.  This was mentioned in the IETF86 discussion.

(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 working group support for this work is solid. 

(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.) 

    No one has threatened an appeal or expressed extreme discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

    Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).

    The errors are downrefs to informational RFCs.  One is RFC2986, which
    is an IETF re-publication of a document from outside the IETF. The other
    is to RFC6090, which is a list of references published outside the
    IETF.  Both are properly Informational.  Both are necessary to the

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    No formal review is required for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

    All references within this document have 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 in this document are RFCs or are
    permanently published outside the IETF.

(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. 

    See the discussion in question 11 of the two downward references to
    RFCs that are Informational:
    [RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
              Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090, February 2011.

    [RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification
              Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986,
              November 2000.

   Both are RFCs that point to material published outside the IETF.

(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.

    Publication of this document updates draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis,
    recently approved for publication.

    This is noted in the header, the abstract, and the introduction.

    draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis updates RFC6485.

(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).

    This document requests the definition of a new registry, to be
    titled "BGPsec Algorithm Suite Registry", in the RPKI group. 
    Algorithms used specifically for BGPsec will be registered in that

    This document defines the initial contents of the registry, which
    are the algorithms defined in this document.  It also defines how
    future registrations will be made - by either Standards Action or
    Early IANA process.  The document also defines what future
    registrations must include - a digest algorithm name, a signature
    algorithm name, and an algorithms suite identifier.

(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.

    No new IANA registries are created by this document that require
    Expert Review.

(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.

    There are no sections of this document written in a formal language.