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?
This document requests Standards Track. This document obsoletes
RFC6485, also noted as Standards Track. RFC6485 is the specification
for cryptographic algorithms and key sizes to be used in the RPKI,
which require standardization for global interoperability. Therefore,
Standard Track is the appropriate RFC type. This type of RFC is
indicated in the header as Intended status.
(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
This document specifies the algorithms, algorithms' parameters,
asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size, and signature format for
the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) subscribers that
generate digital signatures on certificates, Certificate Revocation
Lists (CRLs), Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) signed objects and
certification requests as well as for the relying parties (RPs) that
verify these digital signatures.
Working Group Summary
The need for the new version of RFC6485 was identified in the
working group, and there was wide consensus that it was necessary. A
late arriving and painstakingly detailed review identified some
editorial issues that delayed the swift publication of a
non-controversial change. The IESG consideration noted that the
discussion of algorithm agility had been overtaken by publication of
RFC6916. The working group came to easy consensus on the
appropriate text to refer to RFC6916.
Document Quality
There are at least four widely used implementations of the RPKI
which must implement these cryptographic algorithms. All already
support the changes this document makes in RFC6485. The RPKI
is in production in all five Regional Internet Registries.
Richard Hansen is recognized as having performed a very
exacting review, as mentioned above.
No MIB doctor, Media Type expert or other expert review
was necessary or applicable.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
The Document Shepherd is Sandra Murphy.
The Responsible Area Director is Alvaro Retana
(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 has personally reviewed this document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The Document Shepherd has no concerns; adequate reviews were
performed. This documents corrects a recognized error in an existing
RFC, a change that was not addressable in an errata in the judgment of
the responsible AD.
(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 further review of this document is needed.
(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.
The Document Shepherd has no concerns.
(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.
Each author has confirmed that they have no knowledge of any IPR
related to this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed directly related to this draft.
(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?
The WG consensus of the need for this technical change was strong and
without controversy.
(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 appeals related to this draft have been mentioned.
(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.
The ID nits tool on the datatracker reports:
Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).
The errors are downrefs, normative references to informational RFCs. These
references are retained from RFC6485. See the answer to (15) for full
details.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is applicable to this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, the references are separated into normative and informative sections.
(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 such normative references exist.
(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.
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2986
This RFC is an IETF republication of another organization's document
(PKCS #10 from RSA Laboratories)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3447
This RFC is an IETF republication of another organization's document
(PKCS #1 from RSA Laboratories)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6480
This RFC is the architecture document for the RPKI. The normative reference
is appropriate.
(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.
This document obsoletes RFC6485. Section 8 describes the technical changes to
RFC6485 and the reasons they are necessary, as well as the editorial changes.
(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).
There are no IANA considerations in RFC6485 and the changes to RFC6485
in this document do not require any IANA actions.
(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.
No IANA registries are needed for this document.
(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.
No sections of this document are written in a formal language.