Using Trust Anchor Constraints during Certification Path Processing
RFC 5937

[Ballot discuss]
7.2.  Informative References

  [I-D.draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format]
              Housley, R., Wallace, C., and S. Ashmore, "Trust Anchor
              Format", draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format (work in progress).

I think this reference is Normative, considering that the document is using some ASN.1 structures defined in it.

[Ballot discuss]
I concur with the DISCUSSes lodged by Alexey Melnikov.

In addition, the security considerations do not document what attacks are made possible if implementations do not enforce trust anchor constraints and if trust anchor information is not securely stored. The authors might refer to RFC 3552 in drafting appropriate text.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Geoff Beier is the Document Shepherd for this document and has reviewed this version of the document and believes it ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed? 

The document has received adequate review from subject matter experts.  There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

  (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

There are no specific concerns to highlight to the AD or IESG.  No IPR
disclosures have been filed related to this document.

  (1.e) 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? 

The document is an individual submission.

  (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.)

No.

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

Yes.

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

References have been split into normative and informative sections. 

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? 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 suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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?

There are no IANA considerations for this document, as stated in Section 6 of this document.

  (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?

No sections of the document are written in a formal language.

  (1.k) 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.
    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?
    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?

Technical Summary

This document describes how to use information associated with a trust anchor public key when validating certification paths.  This information can be used to constrain the usage of a trust anchor.  Typically, constraints are used to limit the certificate policies and names that can appear in certification paths validated using a trust anchor.

Working Group Summary

This document is an individual submission.  It describes the usage of constraints represented using the Trust Anchor Format (TAF).

Document Quality

The document is well-written and clear. It has been implemented as part of an open source library (though not all components have been released at this time).

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS DISCUSS: I would like to understand the scope (applicability statement) for this document and also why it is Informational (as opposed to PS).


7.2.  Informative References

  [I-D.draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format]
              Housley, R., Wallace, C., and S. Ashmore, "Trust Anchor
              Format", draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format (work in progress).

I think this reference is Normative, considering that the document is using some ASN.1 structures defined in it.