Skip to main content

Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object profile for Signed Checklist (RSC)
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-05-08
06 Keyur Patel
# Document Shepherd Writeup

This version is dated 30 April 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

This version is dated 30 April 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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 has been a good consensus to progress the document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Section 8: Implementation Status records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this draft.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No.

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.

There are no mib/yang/etc. requirements in this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?

There is no yang model here.

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.

### 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?

The shepherd has read through the several versions and the document is in a good shape to progress further.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

None.

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.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

Yes. Following IPR disclosures have been done so far:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/B9JCmW_WKtCHa4ydsOBRPizwHwU/

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/N0G4bRSnp03F9qjyiq9bi8ftdHg/

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/2448nMklLgl6aQpX4eaRG2VsQIQ/

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

There are only 3 Authors listed on the document. All of them have confirmed their willingness to be listed as Authors.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

There are minor nits that needs to be cleaned up.

Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
    being 3 characters in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (12 February 2022) is 77 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC6268' is mentioned on line 172, but not defined

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 201

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 202

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 433, but not defined


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

Two references were found:

[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
              Michaelson, G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels, T.,
              and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
              Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
              rpki-rta-00>.

[I-D.ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity]
              Bush, R. and R. Housley, "The I in RPKI does not stand for
              Identity", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ymbk-
              sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00, 16 March 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-sidrops-
              rpki-has-no-identity-00>.

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.

None.

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][12]).

All the references to IANA registries have been clearly identified. The draft refers to following registries: SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type registry, RPKI Signed Objects sub-registry, RPKI Repository Name Scheme registry, SMI Security for S/MIME registry, and Provisional Standard Media Type registry.

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

None.
2022-05-07
06 Keyur Patel
# Document Shepherd Writeup

This version is dated 30 April 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

This version is dated 30 April 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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 has been a good consensus to progress the document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Section 8: Implementation Status records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this draft.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No.

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.

There are no mib/yang/etc. requirements in this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?

There is no yang model here.

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.

### 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?

The shepherd has read through the several versions and the document is in a good shape to progress further.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

None.

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.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

Yes. Following IPR disclosures have been done so far:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/B9JCmW_WKtCHa4ydsOBRPizwHwU/

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/N0G4bRSnp03F9qjyiq9bi8ftdHg/


13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

There are only 3 Authors listed on the document. All of them have confirmed their willingness to be listed as Authors.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

There are minor nits that needs to be cleaned up.

Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
    being 3 characters in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (12 February 2022) is 77 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC6268' is mentioned on line 172, but not defined

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 201

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 202

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 433, but not defined


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

Two references were found:

[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
              Michaelson, G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels, T.,
              and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
              Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
              rpki-rta-00>.

[I-D.ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity]
              Bush, R. and R. Housley, "The I in RPKI does not stand for
              Identity", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ymbk-
              sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00, 16 March 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-sidrops-
              rpki-has-no-identity-00>.

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.

None.

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][12]).

All the references to IANA registries have been clearly identified. The draft refers to following registries: SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type registry, RPKI Signed Objects sub-registry, RPKI Repository Name Scheme registry, SMI Security for S/MIME registry, and Provisional Standard Media Type registry.

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

None.
2022-05-06
06 Keyur Patel Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2022-05-06
06 Keyur Patel IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2022-04-30
06 Keyur Patel Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-04-30
06 Keyur Patel Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-04-30
06 Keyur Patel
# Document Shepherd Writeup

This version is dated 30 April 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

This version is dated 30 April 2022.

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

None.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No.

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.

There are no mib/yang/etc. requirements in this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?

There is no yang model here.

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.

### 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?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

None.

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.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

There are only 4 Authors listed on the document. All of them have confirmed their willingness to be listed as Authors.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

There are minor nits that needs to be cleaned up.

Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
    being 3 characters in excess of 72.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (12 February 2022) is 77 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC6268' is mentioned on line 172, but not defined

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 201

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 202

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC-TBD' is mentioned on line 433, but not defined


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

Two references were found:

[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
              Michaelson, G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels, T.,
              and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
              Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-
              rpki-rta-00>.

[I-D.ymbk-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity]
              Bush, R. and R. Housley, "The I in RPKI does not stand for
              Identity", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ymbk-
              sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-00, 16 March 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ymbk-sidrops-
              rpki-has-no-identity-00>.

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.

None.

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][12]).

All the references to IANA registries have been clearly identified. The draft refers to following registries: SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type registry, RPKI Signed Objects sub-registry, RPKI Repository Name Scheme registry, SMI Security for S/MIME registry, and Provisional Standard Media Type registry.

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.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

None.
2022-04-30
06 Keyur Patel IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-04-22
06 Keyur Patel Document shepherd changed to Keyur Patel
2022-04-22
06 Keyur Patel Document shepherd changed to (None)
2022-04-22
06 Keyur Patel Notification list changed to keyur@arrcus.com because the document shepherd was set
2022-04-22
06 Keyur Patel Document shepherd changed to Keyur Patel
2022-02-12
06 Ben Maddison New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-06.txt
2022-02-12
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ben Maddison)
2022-02-12
06 Ben Maddison Uploaded new revision
2022-02-12
05 (System) Document has expired
2022-02-06
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa>, Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, Tom Harrison <tomh@apnic.net>
2022-02-06
06 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision
2021-08-11
05 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-05.txt
2021-08-11
05 (System) New version approved
2021-08-11
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa>, Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, Tom Harrison <tomh@apnic.net>
2021-08-11
05 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision
2021-05-31
04 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-04.txt
2021-05-31
04 (System) New version approved
2021-05-31
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa>, Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, Tom Harrison <tomh@apnic.net>
2021-05-31
04 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision
2021-05-27
03 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-03.txt
2021-05-27
03 (System) New version approved
2021-05-27
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org
2021-05-27
03 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision
2021-03-18
02 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-02.txt
2021-03-18
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Job Snijders)
2021-03-18
02 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision
2021-03-08
01 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-01.txt
2021-03-08
01 (System) New version approved
2021-03-08
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>
2021-03-08
01 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision
2021-03-08
00 Chris Morrow This document now replaces draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc instead of None
2021-03-08
00 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-00.txt
2021-03-08
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-03-08
00 Job Snijders Set submitter to "Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>", replaces to draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc and sent approval email to group chairs: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org
2021-03-08
00 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision