Validation of Route Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)
draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10

[Ballot discuss]
This should be easily fixed. Section 5 talks about the "Validity To" field of an
EE cert - that should be the notAfter field I guess?

[Ballot discuss]
This should be easily fixed. Section 5 talks about the "Validity To" field of an
EE cert - that should be the notAfter field I guess?

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:  (Validation of Route Origination using the Resource Certificate PKI and ROAs) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'Validation of Route Origination using the Resource Certificate PKI and
  ROAs'  as an Informational RFC

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 2011-04-18. 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.

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

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

An IPR disclosure related to this document can be found at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1204/

  (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?

The document shepherd is Sandra Murphy, sidr co-chair.  The document
shepherd has personally reviewed the document.  No issues were
discovered that would prevent advancement.  This document is ready
for forwarding to the IESG.

  (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?

The document has had adequate review.  The issues wrt validation were
energetically discussed in several meetings before the draft was
accepted as a working group item. The working group draft was
presented at working group meetings at the IETF74, IETF76, IETF77 and
IETF79 meetings and went through last call in Nov 2010 in the working
group.  Comments received in the last call were answered on the list.
There was adequate support  from the working group to indicate broad
interest.

  (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, the document shepherd has no concerns about this document.

  (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.

The document shepherd has no concerns with advancing this document.
IPR claims have been filed against this document, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=17633

The working group was asked to consider the question of IPR in Nov 2009.
There was a period of concentrated discussion, with the most prominent
positions being that the claims had no merit, which of course is not the
working group call.

The co-chair was told privately that the request to the working group
was perhaps ill-formed, as it suggested that the working group's options
included making demands about acceptable terms, and such demands are not
allowed.  Happily, no such demands of acceptable terms were suggested.

The summary of the discussion, sent to the list, was that the working
group prefered non-IPR'd technologies but did not reject IPR'd technolgies
completely.  Therefore, this draft could be retained as a working group
item.

  (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?

The discussions of this topic were strong and energetic and at times
heated, with many of the members involved. Since another draft that
provides an implementation of the abstraction described in this document
has also been accepted by the working group, the working group seems to
have consensus on this approach.

  (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.)

See separate email.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        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?

The tools site idnits tool reports:
      Summary: 1 error (**), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
The error is use of a "MAY" indicating 2119 language without mentioning
2119 in the boilerplate.  The word "may" was used many times with no
capitalization and this is the only case where 2119 key words in upper case
have been used.  This capitalization appears to have been made in error with
no intent to invoke 2119 key words.  This will be verified with the authors.

  (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, the document has split its references into normative and informative
sections.  This document relies normatively on several other
working group documents that are advancing at the same time or
have been through last call and are awaiting a final version addressing
minor comments.  This document is intended for Informational status and
there are no downward references.

  (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 [RFC5226]. 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?

The IANA Considerations section exists, is consistent with the document,
and does not create a new registry or entries in an existing registry.

  (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?

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

  (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.
      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?
      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?

Technical Summary

This document defines the semantics of a Route Origin Authorization
(ROA) in terms of an application of the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) to the validation of the origination of routes
advertised in the Border Gateway Protocol.

Working Group Summary

The initial versions of this document presented a validation algorithm
that was considerably more complex than the final verison.  It was
modified and simplified over many versions and presentations.  The
present document is an outcome of energetic discussions involving a
broad cross-section of the working group.  The authors advocated the
original approach vigorously but eventually accepted the group consensus.

Document Quality

The final document is clear and a related document describes an
implementation in the BGP decision process.  The related document is
itself being implemented by at least one router vendor.

There is no MIB and no Media Types are involved.