RPKI Signed Object for Trust Anchor Key
draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-02-29
|
14 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Document shepherd changed to Russ Housley |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Notification list changed to keyur@arrcus.com, housley@vigilsec.com from keyur@arrcus.com |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14 (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? Proposed Standard. Yes, the header calls for a Standards Track RFC. (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: A Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) is used by Relying Parties (RPs) in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to locate and validate a Trust Anchor (TA) Certification Authority (CA) certificate used in RPKI validation. This document defines an RPKI signed object for a Trust Anchor Key (TAK), that can be used by a TA to signal the location(s) of the TA CA certificate. The TAK also supports planned key transitions without impacting RPKI validation by announcing the successor key and the location(s) of its CA certificate. Working Group Summary: There is consensus for this document in the SIDRops WG. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations. Personnel: Russ Housley is the document shepherd. Warren Kumari 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 document shepherd did a thorough review of the document during WG Last Call. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 concerns. (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. 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? The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR related with the 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 were issued against this document. (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? There is consensus for this document in the SIDRops WG. Several people indicated that the document fills a real need. (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 one has threatened an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits points out the downref for RFC 5781; however, this document is already in the downref registry. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No special reviews are needed. (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? Since publication of the Internet-Draft, RFC 6486 has been obsoleted by RFC 9286, and RFC 7230 has been oObsoleted by the combination of RFC 9110 and RFC 9112. These references can be updated when IETF Last Call comments are addressed. (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. There are no downward normative references that are not already in the downref registry. (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). Early allocation was made for the code points called for in Sections 12.1 and 12.4 to facilitate interoperable implementation. The IANA actions called for in Sections 12.2, 12.3, and 12.5 are still pending. (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 new IANA registries are needed. (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. The ASN.1 module in Appendix A compiles without error. |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-02-25
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Warren Kumari (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14 (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? Proposed Standard. Yes, the header calls for a Standards Track RFC. (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: A Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) is used by Relying Parties (RPs) in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to locate and validate a Trust Anchor (TA) Certification Authority (CA) certificate used in RPKI validation. This document defines an RPKI signed object for a Trust Anchor Key (TAK), that can be used by a TA to signal the location(s) of the TA CA certificate. The TAK also supports planned key transitions without impacting RPKI validation by announcing the successor key and the location(s) of its CA certificate. Working Group Summary: There is consensus for this document in the SIDRops WG. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations. Personnel: Russ Housley is the document shepherd. Warren Kumari 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 document shepherd did a thorough review of the document during WG Last Call. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 concerns. (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. 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? The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR related with the 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 were issued against this document. (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? There is consensus for this document in the SIDRops WG. Several people indicated that the document fills a real need. (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 one has threatened an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits points out the downref for RFC 5781; however, this document is already in the downref registry. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No special reviews are needed. (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? Since publication of the Internet-Draft, RFC 6486 has been obsoleted by RFC 9286, and RFC 7230 has been oObsoleted by the combination of RFC 9110 and RFC 9112. These references can be updated when IETF Last Call comments are addressed. (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. There are no downward normative references that are not already in the downref registry. (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). Early allocation was made for the code points called for in Sections 12.1 and 12.4 to facilitate interoperable implementation. The IANA actions called for in Sections 12.2, 12.3, and 12.5 are still pending. (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 new IANA registries are needed. (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. The ASN.1 module in Appendix A compiles without error. |
2024-02-25
|
14 | Russ Housley | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-02-24
|
14 | Russ Housley | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2023-09-05
|
14 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14.txt |
2023-09-05
|
14 | Tom Harrison | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2023-09-05
|
14 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-12
|
13 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-13.txt |
2023-03-12
|
13 | Tom Harrison | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2023-03-12
|
13 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-09
|
12 | Keyur Patel | Notification list changed to keyur@arrcus.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-02-09
|
12 | Keyur Patel | Document shepherd changed to Keyur Patel |
2023-02-09
|
12 | Keyur Patel | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2022-10-11
|
12 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-12.txt |
2022-10-11
|
12 | Tom Harrison | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2022-10-11
|
12 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-14
|
11 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-11.txt |
2022-09-14
|
11 | Tom Harrison | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2022-09-14
|
11 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-11
|
10 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-10.txt |
2022-07-11
|
10 | Tom Harrison | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2022-07-11
|
10 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-06
|
09 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-09.txt |
2022-03-06
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2022-03-06
|
09 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2021-12-16
|
08 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-08.txt |
2021-12-16
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2021-12-16
|
08 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2021-06-17
|
07 | Tom Harrison | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-07.txt |
2021-06-17
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tom Harrison) |
2021-06-17
|
07 | Tom Harrison | Uploaded new revision |
2021-05-05
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-11-01
|
06 | George Michaelson | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-06.txt |
2020-11-01
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-11-01
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: George Michaelson , Rob Austein , Tom Harrison , Tim Bruijnzeels , Carlos Martinez |
2020-11-01
|
06 | George Michaelson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-27
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-01-15
|
05 | George Michaelson | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-05.txt |
2020-01-15
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-15
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Rob Austein , Tim Bruijnzeels , George Michaelson , Carlos Martinez |
2020-01-15
|
05 | George Michaelson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-06
|
04 | George Michaelson | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-04.txt |
2020-01-06
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-06
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Rob Austein , Tim Bruijnzeels , Carlos Martinez |
2020-01-06
|
04 | George Michaelson | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-08
|
03 | Tim Bruijnzeels | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-03.txt |
2019-07-08
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rob Austein , Tim Bruijnzeels , Carlos Martinez |
2019-07-08
|
03 | Tim Bruijnzeels | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-22
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-11-05
|
02 | Chris Morrow | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-10-19
|
02 | Tim Bruijnzeels | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-02.txt |
2018-10-19
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-19
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Tim Bruijnzeels , Carlos Martinez |
2018-10-19
|
02 | Tim Bruijnzeels | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-08
|
01 | Tim Bruijnzeels | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-01.txt |
2018-06-08
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-08
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Tim Bruijnzeels , Carlos Martinez |
2018-06-08
|
01 | Tim Bruijnzeels | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-17
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-11-14
|
00 | Chris Morrow | Added to session: IETF-100: sidrops Wed-1330 |
2017-11-13
|
00 | Chris Morrow | This document now replaces draft-tbruijnzeels-sidrops-signed-tal instead of None |
2017-11-13
|
00 | Tim Bruijnzeels | New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-00.txt |
2017-11-13
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-11-13
|
00 | Tim Bruijnzeels | Set submitter to "Tim Bruijnzeels ", replaces to draft-tbruijnzeels-sidrops-signed-tal and sent approval email to group chairs: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-11-13
|
00 | Tim Bruijnzeels | Uploaded new revision |