Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ccr-07
# Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
There is consensus for this document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was no significant controversy, and suggestions for improvement were
readily accepted by the authors.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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 one has threatened an appeal.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Appendix c shows implementation experience. Appendix C will be dropped by
the RFC Editor.
# Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
No external review is needed.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No special reviews are needed.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?
YANG is not used in this document.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
This document uses ASN.1. After inserting a placeholder module identifier,
the ASN.1 module compiles without error.
# Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is ready, clear, and complete. The document shepherd did
a thorough review of the document as part of WG Last Call. All issues that
were raised during WG Last Call have been resolved.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
No concerns.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. Yes, the header calls for a Standards Track RFC, and
this is reflected in the Datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR
related with the document.
No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
page is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes, each author has stated their willingness to be listed.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
IDnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
IDnits complains about a non-ASCII character, which is part of the
[CRDT] reference. This is not a concern.
IDnits complains that the document has examples using IPv4 documentation
addresses, but it does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses; however,
Appendix B has a complete example that uses both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
from live Internet traffic.
IDnits complains about an unused reference to [RFC6268], which is not
correct. The ASN.1 module imports some definitions from [RFC6268].
IDnits raises a concern about a possible downref for [SHS], which is not
correct. [SHS] has been published by US NIST.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No concerns.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are RFCs, which are, of course, freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97)
that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them.
There are no downward normative references.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?
One normative reference has not yet been published. That document is
in WG Last Call, and it should be with the IESG shortly.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those
RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No document status changes.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
First, IANA has already allocated one object identifier in the
"SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)"
registry. The allocation of id-ct-rpkiCanonicalCacheRepresentation
was necessary for interoperable implementations.
Second, IANA is requested to add the Canonical Cache Representation file
extension (".ccr") to the "RPKI Repository Name Schemes" registry.
Third, IANA is requested to allocate one object identifier in the
"SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0)"
registry for the ASN.1 module in this document.
Fourth, IANA is requested to register two media types:
"application/rpki-ccr" and "application/rpki-ccr+gzip".
The document authors have started a thread on media-types@iana.org
to discuss these registrations.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
None are needed.