Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stephen Farrell |
2011-06-20
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2011-06-20
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2011-05-31
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-05-23
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2011-05-23
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2011-05-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2011-05-16
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-05-16
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-05-16
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-05-16
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-05-16
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-05-16
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-05-16
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-05-11
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Overall this is a fine document but it seems odd that the signed object types that will use this require a standards track … [Ballot discuss] Overall this is a fine document but it seems odd that the signed object types that will use this require a standards track RFC, but yet there are no IANA considerations? I'd have thought that having an IANA registry for those would be useful for implementers. Put another way: should section 4 be turned into an IANA considerations section? |
2011-05-11
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-05-10
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-04.txt |
2011-04-14
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-04-14
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-04-14
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-14
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. --- Section 3 nit. If the all of the conditions above are … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. --- Section 3 nit. If the all of the conditions above are true, then the signed object may be valid. s/the all/all/ |
2011-04-14
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-13
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Overall this is a fine document but it seems odd that the signed object types that will use this require a standards track … [Ballot discuss] Overall this is a fine document but it seems odd that the signed object types that will use this require a standards track RFC, but yet there are no IANA considerations? I'd have thought that having an IANA registry for those would be useful for implementers. Put another way: should section 4 be turned into an IANA considerations section? |
2011-04-13
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-04-13
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-13
|
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-13
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-04-13
|
04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-12
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-12
|
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-12
|
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-12
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-04-11
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-04-11
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-04-14 by Stewart Bryant |
2011-04-11
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Note]: 'Sandra Murphy (sandra.murphy@sparta.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Stewart Bryant |
2011-04-11
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2011-04-11
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
2011-04-11
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-04-06
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2011-03-23
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-03-21
|
04 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions. |
2011-03-11
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2011-03-11
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2011-03-09
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2011-03-09
|
04 | Amy Vezza | 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: … 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: (Signed Object Template for 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: - 'Signed Object Template for 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 2011-03-23. 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-signed-object/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object/ Abstract This document defines a generic profile for signed objects used in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). These RPKI signed objects make use of Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) as a standard encapsulation format. |
2011-03-09
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-03-09
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Last Call was requested |
2011-03-09
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2011-03-09
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | Last Call text changed |
2011-03-09
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-03-09
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-03-09
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-02-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (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? This document has had adequate review. It was produced by extracting common text from other working group drafts that defined signed objects. This draft has not been presented at an IETF meeting as an independent draft, but the documents from which the text was extracted have been presented at IETF70, IETF 71, IETF72, IETF73, IETF75, IETF 76, IETF 77, and IETF 79. So the working group has had opportunity to review the content a number of times. The document has had the advice and review of PKIX and CMS experts. The draft went through last call in Nov 2010 in the working group. Responses were positive; one minor comment was addressed by a new version. 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? A generic signed object was suggested because similar text was present in the manifest and roa-format drafts. At first, there was no consensus that just two examples were sufficient to indicate a need for a generic object. However, when a new signed object was suggested in the working group, the benefits of having a single specification of the common signature elements became clear. The consensus for the document was strong. (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 reports: Summary: 0 errors (**), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). None of the warnings or comments need attention. (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. This document is intended for Standards 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? This document uses ASN.1 in describing portions of the signed object. The syntax was checked using asn1Parser from the libtasn1-tools package (v2.7.1) and passed. (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 generic profile for signed objects used in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). These RPKI signed objects make use of Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) as a standard encapsulation format. Working Group Summary As related above, this document has not been presented at an IETF meeting as an independent draft, but the documents from which the text was extracted have been presented at IETF70, IETF 71, IETF72, IETF73, IETF75, IETF 76, IETF 77, and IETF 79. So the working group has had opportunity to review the content a number of times. The document has had the advice and review of PKIX and CMS experts. Document Quality This document is well written and is clear. Furthermore, the choice to place common text about signatures in a single document (for reference by any other working group document that specifies a new signed object) has improved the quality of the other documents, by eliminating the possibilty of inconsistencies between specifications of common features and by allowing the other documents to devote their text to the particular unique features of the signed object they specify. There is no MIB and there is no Media Type. |
2011-02-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-02-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Sandra Murphy (sandra.murphy@sparta.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
2011-02-16
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-03.txt |
2010-12-31
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-02.txt |
2010-10-04
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-01.txt |
2010-09-28
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-00.txt |