Shepherd writeup
rfc8411-03

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) 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?

The draft does not discuss any technical content. The draft describes 
the set of OIDs that have been donated.  It also describes the creation 
of an IANA registry table, as well as update procedure for adding new
entries which includes, parameters to provide, the review process to 
follow and the way the arc can be extended. It uses the assignments made
 by the document draft-ietf-curdle-pkix to prepopulate the table, including
 a pair of assignments made during discussions that did not make the 
final draft.

The type of the draft is currently "informational". I believe it is 
appropriated. However it is not clear according to RFC2026 what is
more appropriated between BCP / informational. 

The type of the RFC is indicated in the title. 

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
  or introduction.

When the Curdle Security Working Group was chartered, a range of
object identifiers was donated by Symantec Website Security for the
purpose of registering the Edwards Elliptic Curve key agreement and
signature algorithms.  This donated set of OIDs allowed for shorter
values than would be possible using the existing S/MIME or PKIX arcs.
This document describes the range of identifiers that were assigned
in that donated range, transfers control of that range to IANA, and
establishes IANA allocation policies for any future assignments
within that range.

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?

I am not aware of any controversy. 

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? 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? If 
  there was a MIB 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? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Eric Rescorla 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 was reviewed. 

In my opinion the IANA section may need to be clarified at least 
by adding the link to the registry. once created, and by specifying a bit more the 
location of the table. Currently, it not clear in which sub item the table will be. 
Jim said he will do some clean up with the IANA. I believe  this could be easily 
clarified with the RFC editor.

The template he is using is the following one and all information are provided:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime-3

(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 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.

(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.

I have no concerns. Here are some notes the AD might have a different 
view as well as things to be added before publication.

IANA: 
See above (3). I believe that when published, the document should provide:
* a link to the table in the IANA section and the link  provided as an 
   informative reference.  
* a better description of the emplacement of the "SMI Security for 
Cryptographic Algorithms" Registry into the  SMI-numbers registry

This information is not yet available. 

Reference:
[I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix] represents in the current document two different references:
[I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix] that is the RFC to be.
[I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix-3] is the version 03 of the draft. 

These different references are not reflected in the current document and 
needs to be differentiated in the final version.  

From Jim suggestion the two references should be referenced with the same level. 
If that the case, having those in the informative reference section is appropriated as
 [I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix-3] would lead to downref.

Another way could be to have the RFC-to-be [I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix] in the normative
reference section while the [I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix-3] reference will be in the
informative reference section.  

I am fine either way. 

(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 confirmed they are not aware of any IPR. 

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

There is no IPR, so IPR disclosure are not needed. 

(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 no reason to oppose. 

(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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits were found except that draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-05 is outdated by draft-ietf-curdle-pkix-06. 

Maybe the draft should be named as draft-ietf-curdle-oid-registry-00 as it is a WG document. 

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

No. 

(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?

The document should wait for [I-D.ietf-curdle-pkix] to be published. 
 
(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? 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).

I think a once the registry will be created: 
* link should be added as a information reference
* the emplacement of the table should be clarified. 

(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.

RFC 8126 says “For the Specification Required policy, review and 
approval by a designated expert (see Section 5) is required”
I would suggest Jim Schaad and Russ Housley to become designated experts. 

(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.

n/a
Back