Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator
draft-ietf-sidr-ta-07

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

Two piddly nits that are worth addressing only if you have the
document open for other reasons...

---

X.509 on the second line of section 2.1 could use a reference.

---

The definition of a TAL that appears in the first paragraph of 2.1 is
great and could be greater if it appeared in Section 1. Actually, I am
not sure that the first 2 to 2.5 paragraphs of section 2.1 don't belong
in section 1.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document, but before moving to a YES ballot you need to add a normative reference to RFC 4648 (base 64) in Section 2.1:

OLD:

  The TAL is an ordered sequence of a rsync URI [RFC5781], and a base
  64-encoded, ...

NEW:

  The TAL is an ordered sequence of a rsync URI [RFC5781], and a base
  64-encoded encoding with URL and filename safe alphabet [RFC4648], ...

this assumes you'll want to use the same URL and Filename Safe Alphabet (like the sidr-repos-struct draft).

[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document, but before moving to a YES ballot I think you need to add a normative reference to RFC 4648 (base 64) in Section 2.1:

OLD:

  The TAL is an ordered sequence of a rsync URI [RFC5781], and a base
  64-encoded, ...

NEW:

  The TAL is an ordered sequence of a rsync URI [RFC5781], and a base
  64-encoded encoding with URL and filename safe alphabet [RFC4648], ...

this assumes you'll want to use the same URL and Filename Safe Alphabet (like the sidr-repos-struct draft).

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:  (Resource Certificate PKI (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'Resource Certificate PKI (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator'
  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 2011-03-22. 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-ta/

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

Abstract:

  This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource
  Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).

Downref:

This documnet makes a normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5781

  (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 IETF 74, IETF 76 and IETF 78 meetings.

The draft went through last call in Nov 2010 in the working group.
Responses were all positive.  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?

This draft text was originally part of the draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs
document, the first draft the working group took on.  It was extracted
as being a separable topic from the certificate profile spec of the
res-certs draft.  The working group had more than two years and a
dozen versions of the res-certs draft that included this topic, so
there's been ample opportunity to review the idea.

  (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: 1 error (**), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

The error is a downref in a Informational normative reference to RFC 5781.

The lesser errors are due to dates related to the draft.

There are no formal reviews needed for this draft.

  (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.

There is one downrefs to an Informational normative reference:
RFC 5781. RFC 5781 is the specification of the "rsync" URI.  The
rsync URI is a mandated to appear in some protocol messages, and so
the normative reference is appropriate.


  (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?

No formal language is used 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 Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource
Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).

Working Group Summary

Originally, the draft suggested a dual certificate profile for the
publication of trust anchor material more directly.  The working
group found that profile to be too complicated and preferred a
simpler solution.

Document Quality

The document is well written and at least two independent
imlementations exist.

There is no MIB and no Media Types are involved.