Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-04

[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?

[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/

[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?

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.

  (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.