Shepherd writeup
draft-gutmann-scep-14

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