The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs-05

[Ballot comment]
This is a preliminary comment.

The last paragraph in Section 2 is:

  In the certificate, the OID appears in the signature and
  signatureAlgorithm fields [RFC4055];- In the CRL, the OID appears
  in the signatureAlgorithm field [RFC4055]; and,- In CMS
  SignedData, the OID appears in each SignerInfo signatureAlgoithm
  field [RFC3370] using the OID from above.

I think some line breaks got munged:

- In the certificate, the OID appears in the signature and
  signatureAlgorithm fields [RFC4055];
- In the CRL, the OID appears in the signatureAlgorithm field
  [RFC4055]; and,
- In CMS SignedData, the OID appears in each SignerInfo
  signatureAlgoithm field [RFC3370] using the OID from above.

There's also one missing:

- In certification request, the OID appears
  in the PKCS #10 signatureAlgorithm field or in Certificate
  Request Message Format (CRMF) POPOSigningKey signature field.


As noted by Brian in his SECDIR review:

#1) r/This profile should be updated to specify such future requirements, as and when appropriate/This profile should be *replaced* to specify such future requirements, as and when appropriate

#2) Change the title of the document to be the "The Profile" vice "A Profile".

[Ballot comment]
This is a preliminary comment.

The last paragraph in Section 2 is:

  In the certificate, the OID appears in the signature and
  signatureAlgorithm fields [RFC4055];- In the CRL, the OID appears
  in the signatureAlgorithm field [RFC4055]; and,- In CMS
  SignedData, the OID appears in each SignerInfo signatureAlgoithm
  field [RFC3370] using the OID from above.

I think some line breaks got munged:

- In the certificate, the OID appears in the signature and
  signatureAlgorithm fields [RFC4055];
- In the CRL, the OID appears in the signatureAlgorithm field
  [RFC4055]; and,
- In CMS SignedData, the OID appears in each SignerInfo
  signatureAlgoithm field [RFC3370] using the OID from above.

There's also one missing:

- In certification request, the OID appears
  in the PKCS #10 signatureAlgorithm field or in Certificate
  Request Message Format (CRMF) POPOSigningKey signature field.

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:  (A Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'A Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for use in the Resource Public
  Key Infrastructure'
  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 2011-03-24. 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-rpki-algs/

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

Abstract:
  This document specifies the algorithms, algorithms' parameters,
  asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size and signature format for
  the Resource Public Key Infrastructure subscribers that generate
  digital signatures on certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and
  signed objects as well as for the Relying Parties (RPs) that verify
  these digital signatures.

Downref:
Normative reference to is made to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-sidr-arch

  (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.  It was presented at working
group meetings at the IETF76 and IETF79.  This content had previously
been a part of the certificate profile document.  It was decided that
it would be best if the algorithm specification was housed in an
independent draft.  So despite the few times the draft has been
presented, the working group has had opportunity to review the
content for a long time.  Present and former security ADs have
advised on the choice of algorithms and have reviewed the draft.
The draft went through last call in Nov 2010 in the working group.
Responses were positive; there were no comments that required
changes to the document. 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. No
IPR claims have been filed against this document.

  (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 draft has been relatively uncontroversial, with the working group
seemingly content to proceed with the advice of the cryptographic
experts.

  (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.)

No appeals have been issued or threatened for this document.

  (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 says:
Summary: 1 error (**), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

The error is the normative reference to the architecture draft, which
is Informational.  Other standards track drafts in the working group
include the architecture draft as a informative reference.  I believe
that including the architecture draft as a normative reference here
could be corrected in addressing IETF Last Call comments.

The warnings have to do with the dates in the draft and outdated
references.


  (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 either advancing at the same time or
have been through last call and are awaiting final versions addressing
minor comments in order to advance.

Note above comment about the architecture (intended Informational) draft
being cited as a normative reference.

  (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 formal language uses in this document.

  (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 a profile for the algorithm and key size to be
used for signatures applied to certificates, Certificate Revocation
Lists, and signed objects in the context of the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure.

Working Group Summary

The profile for algorithm and key size was originally part of the
certificate profile.  The working group realized that this information
might be used in other drafts as well, so for ease of reference a
separate document was produced.  Furthermore, using a separate document
for this profile means that future changes in the algorithm requirements
will no longer require a revision to the referring documents.

Document Quality

This document is well written and clear.  Although this profile
does not define a protocol, several independent implementations of the
certificate profile exist, which would also involve implementing this
algorithm profile, indicating careful review.

There is no MIB and there is no Media Type.