Shepherd writeup
rfc7318-02

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?


      This draft is to be Standards track, which is indicated in the
      title page header.  This is appropriate because the document is an 
      update to a Standards track RFC (RFC6487, "A Profile for X.509 
      PKIX Resource Certificates".  
      As the status of RFC6487 is Proposed Standard, this document should 
      be published as a Proposed Standard.


(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

  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.


      This document updates RFC 6487 by clarifying the inclusion of policy
      qualifiers in the certificate policies extension of RPKI resource
      certificates.  RFC 6487 does not specifically allow or disallow
      the PolicyQualifierInfo objects that are allowed by RFC5280.


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?


      Working group discussion was energetic but brief during adoption
      and almost immediate wglc.  Consensus was clear.


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?


      This extension was verified to be consistent with
      three (all known) RPKI validator implementations.

      Neither MIB, Media Type, nor other expert review was
      applicable to this draft.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?


      The Document Shepherd is Sandra Murphy
      The Responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas


(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 reviewed the document again as part of
      preparing this writeup, and considers the draft ready for publication.


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


      The document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth
      of the reviews.  This is a simple update to RFC6487, clarifying
      that the objects are allowed.

      There was a brief energetic discussion during adoption discussion
      and another brief energetic discussion during wglc.  Comments
      were received and incorporated into the text.  The discussion
      was adequate for such a short text.


(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 of this document from any particular 
      perspective 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 Document Shepherd has no concerns or issues with this document.


(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.


      The authors have been polled in producing this writeup and
      have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed.


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


      No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this 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? 


      Consensus was obvious, though not unanimous.  The discussion was
      fairly widespread, for this working group.  The motivation
      for this clarification was one RIR region's desire to add
      a policy qualifier to the certificates they issue as a mitigation
      against a perceived legal risk.  That motivation, not the
      clarification, caused the few complaints.
      Some supporters expressed reluctant support (but not forced 
      support) - dislike for policy qualifiers, but recognition
      of the need.  


(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.) 


      There have been no threatened appeals.
      Some of the few non-supporters specifically noted that they 
      would not stand in the way of wg consensus.


(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
thorough.


      The ID nits check found no errors or flaws.  It does warn
      that there is no introduction, since the first section is
      entitled "Update to RFC 6487".  The document is quite
      brief and does not require additional introduction.


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


      There is no need for a formal review for this document.


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


      The document notes only normative references, and all are
      appropriately normative.


(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 the normative references are 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 downward normative references.  All references are
      RFCs that are Standards track or BCP.


(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.


      This document is an update of RFC6487.  It so states in the
      title page header, in the abstract, and in the first section
      (entitled "Update to RFC 6487").


(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 Shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations
      section.
      The document makes no extensions that would be
      associated with reservations in any IANA registry.
      The document makes no references to any IANA registry.
      The document creates no new IANA registry.
      The IANA considerations section correctly notes that there are no
      IANA considerations for this document.  


(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.


      The document creates no new IANA 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 contains no sections written in a formal language.

Back