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?
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 defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource
Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480]. This format
may be used to distribute trust anchor material using a mix of out-
of-band and online means. Procedures used by Relying Parties (RPs)
to verify RPKI signed objects SHOULD support this format to
facilitate interoperability between creators of trust anchor material
and RPs.
This updates RFC6490 to allow a TAL to contain multiple URIs (for
multiple publication points).
Working Group Summary
The multi-URI format was suggested in the draft
draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points. The draft was
presented at four IETFs (IETF84-IETF87) and there were comments on the
mailing list.
The working group felt that the feature of providing multiple
publication points was a benefit for trust anchors, but that the
appropriate way to represent that would be to modify RFC6490.
Document Quality
An IETF presentation of the draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points-01
(from which this extended format was taken) noted that it had
been tested against all three known implementations. Two
implementers recently confirmed that this is the case.
There were no expert reviews required.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Shepherd: Sandra Murphy
Routing AD: 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 document. The document is
ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. Few reviews were received of the new format in this draft, but
it is an extract of a previous draft that was presented at multiple
IETF meetings. The changes to RFC6490 are few and simple.
(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.
No broader review was deemed necessary.
(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.
(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 been queried and have confirmed that they are not
aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No.
(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 draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points-01 from which
this extended format was taken was presented at four different IETF
meetings and was adopted as a working group work item. The individual
draft went through 3 versions and the working group draft went
through two versions. There was adequate consensus for adoption of
that draft and adequate consensus for addressing the TAL part of that
draft in an update to RFC6490.
(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 appeals have been mentioned. No dispute is apparent.
(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 tools id-nits reports:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5781
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
The downref is a normative reference to RFC5781, which defines the rsync
URI schema. This is a mandatory part of the TAL format, so the normative
reference is appropriate. The downref is present in RFC6490 also.
(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. A URI is mentioned, but no URI is
defined. The URI used is the same as in RFC6490.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(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 RFCs and one ITU-T document (X.509). There
are no normative references to documents not ready for advancement.
(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.
One normative reference is to an RFC that is Informational:
[RFC5781] Weiler, S., Ward, D., and R. Housley, "The rsync URI
Scheme", RFC 5781, February 2010.
(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 draft obsoletes RFC6490. This is noted on the title page:
Obsoletes: 6490 (if approved)
(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).
RFC6490 had no IANA considerations, and this update adds none.
(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.
There are no new IANA registries and so no need for 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 in this document written in a formal language.