The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Ghostbusters Record
draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-16

[Ballot comment]
As you will be aware (having read RFC 5513) it is hard to find a previously unused three letter combination. I don't think there are any issues with using the .gbr filename extension, but be aware that it is also used by gimp graphics package.

[Ballot comment]
1) I originally had a discuss saying:

  I don't see how I'd actually find the ghostbuster record say
  starting from a CRL or cert or signed object that I think may be
  (about to be) problematic.  That's probably really clear to rpki
  folks but from just reading this I don't get it, and given the
  purpose of the record it might be worth saying something in the
  document. I'm sure I'll clear once someone provides the (probably
  obvious;-) answer.

That was answered quickly by Randy saying:

> from the object, go up to the CA cert, which may be the object itself,
> of course.  that cert has an SIA to the publication point where all
> subsidiary objects (until you hit a down-chain CA cert's signed objects)
> are published.  the publication point will contain zero or more gbrs.

I reckon it'd be good to say something like that in the doc as well.


2) Is it considered acceptable to not put a person's name in the FN
field of the record but rather a role, e.g. "shit/fan separator" or
the polite equivalent? If that's considered ok, maybe pointing it
out would be good. If not, then perhaps emphasise that the FN must
be the name of a real person but then I wonder how this is
maintained when the current shit/fan separator goes on vacation or
gets fired.

[Ballot comment]
Is it considered acceptable to not put a person's name in the FN
field of the record but rather a role, e.g. "shit/fan separator" or
the polite equivalent? If that's considered ok, maybe pointing it
out would be good. If not, then perhaps emphasise that the FN must
be the name of a real person but then I wonder how this is
maintained when the current shit/fan separator goes on vacation or
gets fired.

[Ballot discuss]
I don't see how I'd actually find the ghostbuster record say
starting from a CRL or cert or signed object that I think may be
(about to be) problematic.  That's probably really clear to rpki
folks but from just reading this I don't get it, and given the
purpose of the record it might be worth saying something in the
document. I'm sure I'll clear once someone provides the (probably
obvious;-) answer.

[Ballot comment]
I was left a bit confused about what precisely is *the* Ghostbusters Record. I got lost as to what was the record, and what was the payload of the record. It would have helped me if in addition to, "The Ghostbusters Record conforms to the syntax defined in [I-D.ietf-sidr-signed-object]", you would have added the sentence "The payload of this signed object is a severely profiled vcard", and maybe having something in the "Additional Information" in the media type registration that it is the SIDR signed-object, not the vcard data, that is being defined as the media type. Maybe folks who work in this space would not have gotten confused, but as random MIME schmo, it took me going back and forth a few times to be clear on what was what.

The IANA Actions in this document are dependent on approval of other
documents under consideration.

IANA understands that, when this and two other documents are approved,
there are three IANA Actions which need to be completed.

First, in the new registry created by the document,
ietf-sidr-signed-object, IANA will registered a single, new OID as follows:

Name OID Specification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ghostbusters 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.35 [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the new registry created by the document,
ietf-sidr-repos-struct. IANA will register a single, new item in the
RPKI Repository Name Scheme as follows:

Filename Extension RPKI Object Reference
-----------------------------------------------------------
.gbr Ghostbusters Record [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the Application Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/index.html

the new application/rpki-ghostbusters media type with the current
document (section 8.3) as a reference.

IANA understands that, upon the approval of this and the two other
documents, these three IANA Actions are the only ones that need to be
completed.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (The RPKI Ghostbusters Record) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'The RPKI Ghostbusters Record'
  as a 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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-09-28. 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


  In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), resource
  certificates completely obscure names or any other information which
  might be useful for contacting responsible parties to deal with
  issues of certificate expiration, maintenance, roll-overs,
  compromises, etc.  This draft describes the RPKI Ghostbusters Record
  containing human contact information which may be verified
  (indirectly) by a CA certificate.  The data in the record are those
  of a severely profiled vCard.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters/


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

Note that idnits shows (the only bits of consequence):
== Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-sidr-ghostbusters' is mentioned on line
282, but not defined

== Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-08

== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev has been published as
RFC 6350

I suggested that the author could fix these up later, they aren't
relevant to the actual content of the doc... (later == before
publication, I presume there will be iesg/etc comments to handle as
well)


(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Doc Shepard: Chris Morrow (and Sandy Murphy)
Have read the doc, feels this is ready for iesg review/publication.


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

I think the document had wide comment and work done by the WG over the
period of time it was being developed.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

no bits/pieces would need extraneous review.


(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.


no issues

(1.e) 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?

fairly solid, no dissent.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

none.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

ran nits, found three as noted initially. None are relevant to the
actual content of the doc.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

yes, split references. done properly. There are referenced ID's, these
should be completed/submitted before publication (there's a plan SIDR
is working toward)

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

yes, this is consistent, i believe the goal is to use already
in-existence registries.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

yes.


(1.k) 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
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
or introduction.

" In the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), resource
certificates completely obscure names or any other information which
might be useful for contacting responsible parties to deal with
issues of certificate expiration, maintenance, roll-overs,
compromises, etc. This draft describes the RPKI Ghostbusters Record
containing human contact information which may be verified
(indirectly) by a CA certificate. The data in the record are those
of a severely profiled vCARD."

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
rough?

"There was no outstanding notable action from the WG work on this document."

Document Quality
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?

"There are two vendors providing support and software for this solution."

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?

"Shephard: Chris Morrow
AD: Stewart Bryant , Adrian Farrel "