Shepherd writeup
rfc7773-12

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 24 February 2012.

(1) This is an individual submission as a proposed standards as it 
has seen reasonably wide implementation and deployment although
currently limited to a single market.

(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

  This document defines an extension to certificates according to
  [RFC5280]. The extension defined in this document holds data about
  how the certificate subject was authenticated by the Certification
  Authority who issued the certificate where this extension appears. 

  This document also defines one data structure for inclusion in this
  extension that designed to hold information when the subject is
  authenticated using a SAML assertion [SAML].

 Working Group Summary

  The PKIX working group is closed.

 Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by the implementors of the Swedish
  eID (goverment to citizen identity services) signing service. There
  are currently at least 3 fully interoperable implementations
  suggesting the specification has been well reviewed.

  An ASN.1 Syntax verification is requested by the document shepherd.

 Personnel

  Shepherd: Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se>
  Responsible Area Director: Kathleen Moriarty 
  <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>

(3) The shepherd reviewed the draft, providing recommendations that have
been address in the version used for IETF last call.  References and IDnits
fixes were recommended.  Content and security considerations were reviewed.
An ASN.1 syntax check was not preformed, but was requested by the shepherd.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review?

A ASN.1 syntax review is requested.

(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? 

no

(7) The shepherd has confirmed with the author that there are no IPR
issues and the draft boilerplate claims full conformance with BCP 78 
and BCP 79.

(8) The shepherd has confirmed with the author that there are no IPR
issues.

(9) The document has been reviewed by the implementors of the Swedish
eID (goverment to citizen identity services) signing service. There
are currently at least 3 fully interoperable implementations
suggesting the specification has been well reviewed. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent?  No.

(11) IDnits have been addressed from the shepherd review against
version -07.

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

ASN.1 syntax review is requested.

(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?  No.

(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.   None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section.  There are no IANA considerations.

(18) There are no IANA considerations.

(19) IDnits were verified and references have been updated from the -07 draft.

Back