I-D list for Remote ATtestation ProcedureS RSS FeedDocument changesurn:uuid:1ddeb760-9f57-5a09-bdc1-c29d60751d402024-03-28T23:04:41-0700EAT Media Types9816632024-03-19T10:34:21-07002024-03-19T10:34:21-0700Kathleen MoriartyChanged consensus to <b>Yes</b> from Unknownchanged_consensusietfratsKathleen Moriartyactiveidexistswg-lcEAT Media Types9816622024-03-19T10:34:09-07002024-03-19T10:34:09-0700Kathleen MoriartyTag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.changed_documentietfratsKathleen Moriartyactiveidexistswg-lcEAT Media Types9816612024-03-19T10:33:36-07002024-03-19T10:33:36-0700Kathleen Moriarty# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents<br><br>*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*<br><br>Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is<br>answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call<br>and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your<br>diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is<br>further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors<br>and editors to complete these checks.<br><br>Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure<br>to answer all of them.<br><br>## Document History<br><br>1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a<br> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?<br><br>The document is straightforward and has reached working group consensus.<br><br>2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where<br> the consensus was particularly rough?<br><br>No, while several comments were made in last call, they were easily resolved.<br><br>3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If<br> so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the<br> responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this<br> questionnaire is publicly available.)<br><br>No.<br><br>4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of<br> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated<br> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,<br> either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere<br> (where)?<br><br>There is a demand for the registry of the new media types due to dependencies <br>and implementations that rely on the publication into the registry.<br><br>## Additional Reviews<br><br>5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other<br> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit<br> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which<br> reviews took place.<br><br>There was cross WG review and the W3C (per Mike Jones) is in need of the Media Type <br>registry additions from this document as well. They have reviewed and this also<br>meets their needs.<br><br>6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,<br> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.<br><br>Media types are being requested and will be reviewed as part of the request process<br>of the media type experts to extend the registry.<br><br>7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module<br> been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and<br> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is<br> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module<br> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified<br> in [RFC 8342][5]?<br>N/A<br><br>8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the<br> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,<br> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.<br><br>## Document Shepherd Checks<br><br>9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this<br> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready<br> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?<br>Yes. I made several recommendations for cleanup that were accepted.<br><br>10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their<br> reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified<br> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent<br> reviews?<br>The Media Type requirements have been reviewed by the authors and WG.<br><br>11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best<br> Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],<br> [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type<br> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?<br><br>Standards track due to the request for new media type definitions.<br><br>12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual<br> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To<br> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If<br> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links<br> to publicly-available messages when applicable.<br>Yes, each author responded on the RATS mailing list when asked about <br>IPR disclosures and none were identified.<br><br>13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be<br> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page<br> is greater than five, please provide a justification.<br>Yes. There are 3 authors.<br><br>14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits<br> tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on<br> authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates<br> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)<br><br>15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG<br> Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].<br><br>The informative and normative references are appropriate.<br><br>16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did<br> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative<br> references?<br>N/A<br><br>17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP<br> 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,<br> list them.<br><br>N/A<br><br>18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be<br> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?<br> If so, what is the plan for their completion?<br>N/A, other documents have this as a dependency as it is a simple draft with a narrow <br>focus.<br><br>19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If<br> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs<br> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the<br> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document<br> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.<br>The UUCS draft is referenced in this draft and it's just ahead of <br>this in the queue, in IESG Review. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-uccs/<br><br>20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,<br> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.<br> Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are<br> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm<br> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm<br> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,<br> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).<br><br>The IANA section is as expected.<br><br>21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for<br> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?<br> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.<br><br>Media Type registrations are requested and require the review process <br>specified in BCP13, specification required (this document) and reviewed<br>by the designated expert.<br><br><br>[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/<br>[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html<br>[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html<br>[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools<br>[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html<br>[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics<br>[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79<br>[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/<br>[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html<br>[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97<br>[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html<br>[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5<br>[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1<br>[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2<br>[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview<br>[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/<br>[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/<br><br>changed_protocol_writeupietfratsKathleen Moriartyactiveidexistswg-lcTPM-based Network Device Remote Integrity Verification9814792024-03-19T00:09:10-07002024-03-19T00:09:10-0700(System)RFC Editor state changed to <b>EDIT</b> from MISSREFchanged_stateietfratsNancy Cam-WingetRoman Danyliwactivenoicchangedrfcqueueeditsub-pubA YANG Data Model for Challenge-Response-based Remote Attestation Procedures using TPMs9814782024-03-19T00:09:04-07002024-03-19T00:09:04-0700(System)RFC Editor state changed to <b>EDIT</b> from MISSREFchanged_stateietfratsNancy Cam-WingetRoman Danyliwactiverfcedackreviewers-okchangedrfcqueueeditsub-pubA CBOR Tag for Unprotected CWT Claims Sets9810542024-03-18T16:49:48-07002024-03-18T16:49:48-0700Roman DanyliwFollow-up AD review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/VFMB11oiqsTwZPkoOS83eD7I0cs/added_commentietfratsKathleen MoriartyRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubA CBOR Tag for Unprotected CWT Claims Sets9810532024-03-18T16:49:47-07002024-03-18T16:49:47-0700(System)Changed action holders to Henk Birkholz, Jeremy O'Donoghue, Nancy Cam-Winget, Carsten Bormann (IESG state changed)changed_action_holdersietfratsKathleen MoriartyRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubA CBOR Tag for Unprotected CWT Claims Sets9810522024-03-18T16:49:47-07002024-03-18T16:49:47-0700Roman DanyliwIESG state changed to <b>AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed</b> from AD Evaluation::AD Followupchanged_stateietfratsKathleen MoriartyRoman Danyliwactivead-evalsub-pubAttestation Event Stream Subscription9805582024-03-18T00:05:12-07002024-03-18T00:05:12-0700(System)Document has expiredexpired_documentietfratsexpiredidexistswg-doc