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

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    sidr mailing list <sidr@ietf.org>,
    sidr chair <sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org>,
    sidr mailing list <sidr@ietf.org>,
    sidr chair <sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-04.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Signed Object Template for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure'
  (draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-04.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object/

Ballot Text

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

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 possibility 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.


Personnel

Sandra Murphy is the Document Shepherd for this document
Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

Section 3 nit. 

   If the all of the conditions above are
   true, then the signed object may be valid.

s/the all/all/

RFC Editor Note