Shepherd writeup
rfc8210-09

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?

   The RFC is to be 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

   In order to verifiably validate the origin Autonomous Systems and
   Autonomous System Paths of BGP announcements, routers need a simple
   but reliable mechanism to receive Resource Public Key Infrastructure
   (RFC 6480) prefix origin data and router keys from a trusted cache.
   This document describes a protocol to deliver validated prefix origin
   data and router keys to routers.

Working Group Summary

   This document is an update to RFC6810.  It adds support for
   a new PDU to carry router key information, new timing
   values, and a version negotiation.  As it is an update to
   a protocol currently in use, the working group discussion
   was focused on the additional features.

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 three different implementations of the server side
  of this protocol.  Three router vendors have implemented the
  client side.  Four other implementations of the client side
  are also known.

  Richard Hansen did a particularly meticulous review.

  There was no need for an expert review.

Personnel

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

  Document Shepherd: Chris Morrow
  Responsible Area Director: 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 read the document and believes the document
  is ready for a publication request.

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

  No.  Several reviews were detailed and in depth.

(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 need for a review from a 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.

(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.

   Each author has confirmed that they know of no needed IPR
   disclosures.

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

   No, no IPR disclosures have been filed.

(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? 

   This document has been discussed in the wg since Apr 2014.
   This is an update to rfc64810 with a limited number of changes
   to discuss, and there was solid agreement on the changes.

(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 appeal has been threatened or filed. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

   The nits tool finds the following errors:

   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925)

   This is true of RFC6810 as well.  Both RFC2385 and RFC6925 were/are
   mentioned in the draft as alternatives, RFC2385 is a "MAY".


(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 nothing in the document that requires a formal review.

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

   Yes, the list of references is separated into normative and informative.

(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?

   The reference draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs  has passed wglc but
   is waiting on a referenced document.

(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. 

   The nits tools reports no downrefs.

(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 obsoletes RFC6810.  That is listed in the header
    on the first page.  The changes are listed in the Introduction
    section, in section 1.2.


(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).

   This document extends the IANA registries established in RFC6810.
   This document defines a new protocol version, and retains the
   original registered values for the rpki-rtr-pdu and rpki-rtr-error
   registries, duplicating the registered values for the new protocol
   version.  A new value is added to the rpki-rtr-pdu registry and
   a new value is added to the rpki-rtr-error registry.  This is
   consistent with the text.

   The registries are clearly identified, the values are consistent
   with the text, all extensions are noted for registration in the
   proper registries.  No new IANA registries are created.

(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.

   No new IANA registries are created by this document.

(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 formal languages used in this document.

Back