As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
(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 is requested for this Internet-Draft. This is
appropriate given the I-D is a minor augmentation to an existing
Standards Track RFC. The type is indicated in the title page header.
(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
The document defines a new set of attributes to disambiguate
overloaded using of the PKCS #9 challengePassword attribute. The
new attributes retain the structure of the existing attribute but
are identified by new object identifiers.
Working Group Summary
The document was discussed on the PKIX mailing list. Since the
PKIX working group is no longer active, this document is proceeding
as an individual submission.
Document Quality
There are no fielded implementations yet, but at least one is in
development. Other vendors have expressed interest. The lack of
existing implementations is not a cause for concern due to the
nature of the document, which is essentially defining a few new
object identifiers.
The Document Shepherd is Russ Housley. The responsible Area
Director is Stephen Farrell.
(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 rationale for the new object identifiers was the primary focus
of the review. The basis for supported alternative challenge
password mechanisms to the one defined in RFC 7030 is well founded.
The document is ready for publication.
(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 interested community has discussed those
issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.
I have no concerns with this document.
(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.
Each author has confirmed that no IPR disclosures need to be filed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? 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?
There is solid consensus amongst a small group of interested parties.
There have been no objections raised from the broader community
associated with RFC 7030.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
No nits were identified, aside from a normative downref described
below.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required.
(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?
There are no normative references to documents that are not
ready for advancement.
(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.
The document contains a reference to RFC 5912, which is Informational.
In this context, the downref is appropriate as it incorporates current
ASN.1 definitions.
(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
interested community considers it unnecessary.
This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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).
Each of the requested new object identifier values were reviewed.
The requested arcs for these values are appropriate.
(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 requested by this document.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by 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 (with temporary object identifiers
inserted) was checked using a commercial ASN.1 syntax checker, and
no issues were found.