As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
An AD sponsored, informational RFC is requested and is noted in the title page
header. This is a process document and as such is an appropriate choice,
although it does specify a protocol and could be experimental or standards
track. The process aspect using existing standards, while defining the format
for a text file, lends this more towards informational.
(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
When security risks are discovered by independent security
researchers, they often lack the channels to disclose them properly.
As a result, security issues may be left unreported. This document
defines a standard ("security.txt") to help organizations describe
the process for security researchers to follow in order to disclose
security vulnerabilities securely.
Working Group Summary
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
document?
This is an AD sponsored draft and was discussed on the SAAG mailing list.
This draft was also presented at IETF 101 in the SecDispatch session,
resulting in the consensus decision that this document go forward as an AD
sponsored document. There was quite a bit of discussion on the SAAG list and
all technical comments seem to have been addressed. There was one suggestion
that RDAP might be better suited, saying that if the system were to be
compromised , there would be no way of noticing if the security.txt had been
modified (assuming new signature is placed on the file). Otherwise, there
was agreement to publish and there was active experiments to test this
process early in the draft's history.
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?
There are active implementations of the security.txt file that were noted by
reviewers of the draft on list in addition to the UK NCSC mentioned off-list.
Contributors are mentioned by way of reference to the SAAG list. There are a
few that could merit being called out specifically as they did influence some
positive updates to the draft.
Personnel
Kathleen Moriarty is the Document Shepherd. Benjamin Kaduk is the
Responsible Area Director.
(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 shepherd provided a published technical review of the draft to the SAAG
list. Once that was addressed, the shepherd checked with authors/editors on
knowledge of IPR finding xxxxx. Next the shepherd reviewed all list
communication on the draft to find that all actionable comments had been
addressed. The shepherd also reached out to Paul Woulters who was in
opposition to this approach to solve the problem and found he remains not in
favor. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/WoVRqcqmWdbE4mZo42XHBCKb9vg
(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, it describes a text file.
(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.
See above comments from Paul Woulters. I do not see this as a reason to block
publication as he prefers a different approach to solve the problem.
(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.
Yes, both authors have confirmed they are not aware of existing IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
(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 consensus to progress this informational document.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
One error was found, a line was too long and the editors were asked to correct
this issue.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No reviews necessary.
(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?
No.
(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.
No.
(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.
No. This document does not update any existing document.
(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).
IANA is requested to create the "security.txt Header Fields" registry.
Additional entries require expert review. Changes to the list of required
entires requires an update to this document. There are no references to
existing IANA registries.
(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.
IANA is requested to create the "security.txt Header Fields" registry.
Additional entries require expert review. Changes to the list of required
entires requires an update to 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.
None.