Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-suit-information-model-07:
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Informational.
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Document covers threat model and resulting requirements.
The corresponding standards track document is the
still-in-progress draft-ietf-suit-manifest.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes.
(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:
Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the
need for a solid and secure firmware update mechanism that is also
suitable for constrained devices. Ensuring that devices function and
remain secure over their service life requires such an update
mechanism to fix vulnerabilities, to update configuration settings,
as well as adding new functionality
One component of such a firmware update is a concise and machine-
processable meta-data document, or manifest, that describes the
firmware image(s) and offers appropriate protection. This document
describes the information that must be present in the manifest.
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?
Nothing worth noting. Consensus was straightforward, and
a large number of participants provided feedback on earlier
versions, as noted in the Acknowledgements section.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
This document is a set of threats and requirements and as such
is not implemented directly. There are implementations of
draft-ietf-suit-manifest which is one specification that
meets the requirements in this document.
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?
This document has gone through many reviews with incremental
changes over time. Section 6 (acknowledgments) contains a long
list of those who have reviewed this document over time.
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?
N/A
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Dave Thaler
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roman Danyliw
(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 manual review of the doc, and
also checked it against id-nits.
(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.
Nothing specific needed. The primary purpose is a threat
model document and resulting security requirements and this
was done in a security area working group.
(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?
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
None filed.
(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?
This document has solid WG consensus, with many reviewers.
(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.)
None.
(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.
ID nits warnings:
== There are 168 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in
the document.
All of these are false positives. Requirements and use cases
are named with a format like 'REQ.USE.PARSE' which is not an FQDN
and ID-notes reports "Found possible FQDN". Verified that it is
clear there are not FQDNs.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A
(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?
draft-ietf-suit-architecture-11 will be submitted at the same time
(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.
No
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
No
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.
N/A
(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).
This document does not require any actions by IANA.
Document shepherd verified that none are needed.
(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 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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A. No formal languages used.
(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?
N/A. No YANG module here.