New ASN.1 Modules for the Evidence Record Syntax (ERS)
RFC 9169

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9169, changed abstract to 'The Evidence Record Syntax (ERS) and the conventions for including these evidence records in the Server-based Certificate Validation Protocol (SCVP) are expressed using ASN.1.  This document offers alternative ASN.1 modules that conform to the 2002 version of ASN.1 and employ the conventions adopted in RFCs 5911, 5912, and 6268.  There are no bits-on-the-wire changes to any of the formats; this is simply a change to the ASN.1 syntax.', changed pages to 11, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-12-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published, changed ISE state to Published RFC)

[Ballot comment]
Section 1

  The Evidence Record Syntax (ERS) [RFC4998] provides two ASN.1
  modules, one using the 1988 syntax [OLD-ASN1], which has been
  deprecated by the ITU-T, and another one using the 2002 syntax
  [NEW-ASN1], which continued to be maintained and enhanced.  [...]

This looks a little weird, since RFC 4998 itself claims to provide
modules with the "1988 syntax" and the "1997 syntax", and 1997 is not
equal to 2002.  Maybe we could have another phrase to relate the two?

Section 2

I don't expect that I have access to the definition of Attribute from
2.5.1.1.4 to be able to compare it to the "AttributeSet {{ERSAttrSet}}"
that we define here.

      CryptoInfos ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute
      [...]
      Attributes ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute

The module from RFC 4998 seems to impose the additional constraint (for
both of these) that the post-extension-marker component
valuesWithContext is absent (but I could be misreading it); is that
particularly noteworthy?

NITS

Abstract

  The Evidence Record Syntax (ERS) and the conventions for including
  these evidence record in the Server-based Certificate Validation

singular/plural mismatch "record"/"these"

[Ballot comment]
The ITU linked worked for me, but a better one might be https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.208-198811-W/en

Note: This is just a suggestion/thought. No need to reply either way.

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup seems to be missing.

Is the URL for the ITU reference correct?  I tried it in two different browsers and just get a blank page each time.

Other than that, just some nits:

* Everywhere you say "alternate", I think you mean "alternative".

* In the Abstract, in "... the conventions for including these evidence record in the ...", s/record/records/

* In Section one, in "... which continued to be ...", s/continued/continues/

[Ballot comment]
Is the URL for the ITU reference correct?  I tried it in two different browsers and just get a blank page each time.

Other than that, just some nits:

* Everywhere you say "alternate", I think you mean "alternative".

* In the Abstract, in "... the conventions for including these evidence record in the ...", s/record/records/

* In Section one, in "... which continued to be ...", s/continued/continues/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the SMI Security for LTANS Module Identifier registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

OID Value: 1.3.6.1.5.5.11.0.1.2
Description: id-mod-ers-v2
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

OID Value: 1.3.6.1.5.5.11.0.5.2
Description: id-mod-ers-scvp-v2
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-08-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (New ASN.1 Modules for the Evidence Record Syntax (ERS)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'New ASN.1 Modules for the Evidence Record Syntax (ERS)'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-08-13 Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Evidence Record Syntax (ERS) and the conventions for including
  these evidence record in the Server-based Certificate Validation
  Protocol (SCVP) are expressed using ASN.1.  This document offers
  alternate ASN.1 modules that conform to the 2002 version of ASN.1 and
  employ the conventions adopted in RFC 5911, RFC 5912, and RFC 6268.
  There are no bits-on-the-wire changes to any of the formats; this is
  simply a change to the ASN.1 syntax.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.