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 1 November 2019.
(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?
Proposed Standard
(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:
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.
Technical Summary:
(NOTE: This is an update to an existing RFC - RFC6486)
"This document defines a "manifest" for use in the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI). A manifest is a signed object (file) that
contains a listing of all the signed objects (files) in the
repository publication point (directory) associated with an authority
responsible for publishing in the repository. For each certificate,
Certificate Revocation List (CRL), or other type of signed objects
issued by the authority that are published at this repository
publication point, the manifest contains both the name of the file
containing the object and a hash of the file content. Manifests are
intended to enable a relying party (RP) to detect certain forms of
attacks against a repository. Specifically, if an RP checks a
manifest's contents against the signed objects retrieved from a
repository publication point, then the RP can detect "stale" (valid)
data and deletion of signed objects."
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?
There was quite a long and thorough discussion of this document in the WG. With
a large sea change in management of the Manifest and publication-point data
repositories proposed and agreed-upon by the group and authors.
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, YANG 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?
This is a -bis for an existing document, there is quite a bit of deployed
infrastructure / implementations of the prior document, and most have now
shifted to this new document as a response to some operational issues
experienced in the field.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd - Chris Morrow (morrowc@ops-netman.net)
Responsible AD - Warren Kumari (warren@kumari.net)
(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 had extensive review, comment and improvement by the working group
members, software implementers and systems operators.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns.
(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 extra review required
(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.
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?
All IPR claims have been previously claimed, no new IPR exists.
(I believe no IPR exists for the original, too)
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
yes.
(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?
I believe the consensus is pretty solid, more solid than most SIDROPS work,
actually.
(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 threats.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
There are 2 nits errors:
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6485 (Obsoleted by RFC 7935)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8488
There are 4 missing reference materials:
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6482' is defined on line 639, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6493' is defined on line 659, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC8209' is defined on line 667, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC8488' is defined on line 673, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
All of the above will be fixed prior to final version to the editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
none required as near as I recall.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
2 normative references, both are captured above as needing fixes.
(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?
nope
(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.
There is 1 downward reference, to: RFC 8488
this reference appears to be proper/appropriate.
(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.
It should update RFC6486
(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 8126).
There are no new considerations to consider.
(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.
none.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
none.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
no.