Suite B Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile
draft-solinas-suiteb-cert-profile-04

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 

Paul Hoffman

Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
and, in particular,

Yes.

does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? 

Yes. Requests for comments for each of the -00, -01, and -02 were
were sent to the PKIX WG. It was also reviewed internally at
authors' organization.

Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

No.

(1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

No.

(1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? 

This is a profile from a particular organization. I have been
told there is agreement within the appropriate parts of that
organization that this is the desired profile.

Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

It is impossible to measure this for an organization-specific
profile. However, I assume there is a strong concurrence within
the organization.

(1.f)  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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

Not to my knowledge.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). 

Yes.

Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document met all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?

No formal review checks are needed for this document.

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 

Yes.

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 strategy for their
completion? 

No.

Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If so, list these downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
for them [RFC3967].

No.

Note that there is an informative reference to an in-progress
Internet Draft; it is expected that the RFC Editor will hold
publication of this document until that document has been
published.

(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document? 

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?  Are the
IANA registries clearly identified?  If the document creates a new
registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Not applicable.

(1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

There is some trivial ASN.1; I have validated it visually.

(1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This is a profile of RFC 5280 (PKIX format) that is specific to
the United States National Security Agency's Suite B Cryptography
specification. In essence, it profiles RFC 5280 down to meet the
Suite B requirements.

Working Group Summary

The document was announced multiple times on the PKIX WG mailing
list, and some off-list comments were sent to the document
authors. There was also a short presentation on the document at
IETF 74. It was not appropriate to discuss it in the WG itself.

Document Quality

It is expected that this document will be widely adopted by
vendors for the organization that wrote this profile. Most if not
all of the algorithms specified in this profile are already in at
least one popular open-source package.