Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14


(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.  Yes, the header calls for a Standards Track RFC.
 

(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:

  Technical Summary:

   A Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) is used by Relying Parties (RPs) in the
   Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to locate and validate a
   Trust Anchor (TA) Certification Authority (CA) certificate used in
   RPKI validation.  This document defines an RPKI signed object for a
   Trust Anchor Key (TAK), that can be used by a TA to signal the
   location(s) of the TA CA certificate.  The TAK also supports planned
   key transitions without impacting RPKI validation by announcing the
   successor key and the location(s) of its CA certificate.

  Working Group Summary:

   There is consensus for this document in the SIDRops WG.

  Document Quality:

   There are multiple implementations.
    
  Personnel:

   Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
   Warren Kumari is the responsible area director.


(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 shepherd did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.


(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 concerns.


(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?

  The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR
  related with the document.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?  If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.


(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?

  There is consensus for this document in the SIDRops WG.
  Several people indicated that the document fills a real need.


(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 one has threatened an appeal.


(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.
  
  IDnits points out the downref for RFC 5781; however, this document
  is already in the downref registry.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   No special reviews are needed.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

  Yes.


(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?

  Since publication of the Internet-Draft, RFC 6486 has been obsoleted
  by RFC 9286, and RFC 7230 has been oObsoleted by the combination of
  RFC 9110 and RFC 9112.  These references can be updated when IETF
  Last Call comments are addressed.


(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 are no downward normative references that are not already in
  the downref registry.


(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.

  No.


(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 5226).

  Early allocation was made for the code points called for in Sections
  12.1 and 12.4 to facilitate interoperable implementation.  The IANA
  actions called for in Sections 12.2, 12.3, and 12.5 are still pending.


(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.

  No new IANA registries are needed.


(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, etc.

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A compiles without error.
Back