Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-gutmann-scep

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?
Informational is being request. After much debate regarding which status was
appropriate (Historic or Standards track), Informational was arrived at as a
compromise. Community consensus agrees with this classification. This is
indicated in the title page 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 specifies
the Simple Certificate Enrolment Protocol (SCEP), a PKI protocol that leverages
existing technology by using CMS (formerly known as PKCS #7) and PKCS #10 over
HTTP.  SCEP is the evolution of the enrollment protocol sponsored by Cisco
Systems, which enjoys wide support in client and server implementations, as
well as being relied upon by numerous other industry standards that work with
certificates. 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? The document
was not considered by any WG. The primary source of controversy related to
classification as Standards track, which despite very wide spread use was
perceived by some as detracting from the several other standards track
enrollment protocol specifications. 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? Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible
Area Director? There are may existing implementations of the protocol with a
significant number and variety of vendors providing server or client
implementations. The Responsible Area Director is Kathleen Moriarty. (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 followed this draft since initial publication to progress the long stalled
draft-nourse-scep-23. The draft is ready for publication. (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 about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed. (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. The document does not require a
particular or broader perspective. The document is a straightforward update to
advance a document that stalled during standards efforts despite widespread
use. (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. The document shepherd has no specific concerns or issues that
the Responsible Area Directory and/or IESG should be aware of. (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 author has confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
have already been filed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references
this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed for this draft, but there were
disclosures on the predecessor draft-nourse-scep. (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? The consensus
is sufficient in that the protocol is ubiquitous in practice. (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 or otherwise indicated
extreme discontent. (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. See
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gutmann-scep-08.txt
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document may benefit
from a media type review. (13) Have all references within this document been
identified as either normative or informative? All references are identified as
normative or informative. (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? Draft -08
has a few normative references that may need to be updated (see nits referenced
above). (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 references (and this draft should be of
help in avoid such once published). (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. Publication of this document
will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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 OIDs in the
IANA considerations section appear to be appropriate and sufficient. (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 required.
(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. No automated checks were performed.

Back