> 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 standardizes a use of PASSporTs, exercising its extension
mechanisms. Its intended status is Proposed Standard.
> (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 extends PASSporT, which is a token object that conveys
cryptographically-signed information about the participants involved
in communications, to include information defined as part of the
SHAKEN specification from ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions) and the SIP Forum IP-NNI Joint Task Force. These
extensions provide a level of confidence in the correctness of the
originating identity for a telephone network that has communications
coming from both STIR participating originating communications as
well as communications that does not include STIR information.
Working Group Summary
This document is a product of the STIR working group.
Document Quality
There are implementations of this document.
JWT claims registration review was requested 18 Oct 2018
Personnel
Robert Sparks is the document shepherd.
Adam Roach 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 reviewed this document, ran id-nits, and visually inspected
the example PASSporTs provided.
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
This document began WGLC in April 2018. Feedback from the group was
minimal. (The document is short and straightforward.)
One suggestion to use the compact form of PASSporT with
these claims was discussed at the STIR session at IETF 102. The
suggestion was rejected (in offline conversations), and the document
was updated to explicitly state that the use of the compact form of
PASSporT is not specified. The security considerations section was
added to the document very late in the process, but again, the document
is short and straightforward, and the security considerations are not
surprising.
> (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.
JWT claims registration review was requested 18 Oct 2018.
See <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jwt-reg-review/mkGyvI2ZO20EFCPmObIlhl5UuNE>
> (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.
There are no such concerns outstanding,
> (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 so confirmed.
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
There are no such disclosures filed.
> (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 document is straighforward and has the consensus of the working
group, even if feedback has been minimal.
> (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 such indications have been made.
> (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.
None.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
See Item (5)
> (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 such references exist, but the IESG should note the normative
reference to the the ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Group document at
[ATIS-10000074]. The group believes this normative reference is
appropriate.
> (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 such references exist.
> (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 does not attempt to change the status of any other 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).
The IANA considerations section registers entries in two existing registries.
The registrations are straightforward, and the instructions are clear and
complete.
> (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.
This document creates no registries.
> (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 such formal language sections exist. The shepherd visually inspected
the example PASSporT objects