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?
The intended status is Standards Track. This is the appropriated status as
it defines new code points, structures as well as behaviors necessary for
inter operability.
The status is indicated in the 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
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.
This document describes the conventions for using Elliptic Curve
Diffie-Hellamn (ECDH) key agreement algorithm using curve25519 and
curve448 in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS).
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?
The document had two reviews on the mailing list (including Jim Schaad). The
author
mentions in its acknowledgment feed backs from Stefan Santesson, Sean Turner.
There is significant confidence the document is mature and ready to be sent to
the IESG. None object the the draft and only nits have been raised.
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?
Jim Schaad provides a sorrow review of the draft.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Eric Rescola is the Security Area
AD.
(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 document shepherd reviewed the draft carefully and did not find
anything other than nits.
(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 WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.
None.
(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.
Russ Housley confirmed he is not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
(9) 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?
None object. Few individuals have been leading that work 9Russ and Jim), we are
confident the work is properly done, and none raised any issue or comment
against it. By design, there is hardly anything that could be opposed to
introducing new
recommended cryptography.
(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.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 118
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 119
== Unused Reference: 'PKIXALG' is defined on line 530, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'PKIXECC' is defined on line 535, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5911 (ref.
'CMSASN1')
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5753 (ref.
'CMSECC')
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7748 (ref.
'CURVES')
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5869 (ref.
'HKDF')
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ID.curdle-pkix'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SEC1'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X680'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X690'
Warnings correspond to the ASN1 synthax.
116 ECC-CMS-SharedInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
117 keyInfo AlgorithmIdentifier,
118 entityUInfo [0] EXPLICIT OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
119 suppPubInfo [2] EXPLICIT OCTET STRING }
530 [PKIXALG] Bassham, L., Polk, W., and R. Housley, "Algorithms and
531 Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key
532 Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
533 (CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, April 2002.
It is not mentioned in the text and will be removed.
PKIXECC is the reference for RFC 5480
535 [PKIXECC] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
536 "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key
537 Information", RFC 5480, March 2009.
It is not mentioned in the text and will be removed.
The following references are informational.
* [CMSASN1] Hoffman, P., and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS) and S/MIME", RFC 5911, June 2010. * [CMSECC] Turner, S.,
and D. Brown, "Use of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Algorithms in
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 5753, January 2010. * [CURVES]
Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves for Security", RFC
7748, January 2016. * [HKDF] Krawczyk, H., and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based
Extract-and- Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, May 2010.
The Downref is justified by RFC3967 as it falls into the following case:
o A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or
profiled by an IETF informational RFC.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document contains ASN1 description. ASN1 has been reviewed by Jim Schaad.
(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.
see question 11.
(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 WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
(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).
The IANA section contains assignment to Structure of Management
Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) [1]. The description
is provided in RFC7107. The current draft updates:
1) S/MIME Module Identifiers (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) registry [2]
2) SMI Security for S/MIME Algorithms (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.3) registry [3]
In both cases, expert review is needed. Experts are Jim Schaad and Russ Housley
and the registration procedure is Specification Required, which is achieved by
this draft according to rfc5226
[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml
[2]
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime-0
[3]
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#security-smime-3
(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.
See above, the only expert outside the author is Jim Schaad.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
None .