Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group
draft-housley-pkix-oids-03

[Ballot comment]
I appreciate that the process here is a bit complicated because the
arc is transitioning from the PKIX WG to IANA. That means some
codepoints are limbotomised (caught in the gap created by the
transition) in that the DE has not had a chance to pronounce on
them and no IETF-approved document records them, yet they need to be
captured in the new registry.

I think it would be good to call these out explicitly (yes they are
present in the lists in Section 3, but there is no explanation) so
that we have a record that the WG has already approved them.

Part of the issue here is that the relevant documents are not PKIX
WG documents. Furthermore, the documents do not appear to have
satisfactory IANA considerations sections.

Obviously, this document cannot fix those other documents, but it
would be good to include a section (e.g. 2.1) describing "Allocations
Already Approved by the PKIX Working Group".

I believe that this would also serve to address IANA's questions about
the relationship with draft-housley-pkix-test-oids (although not their
question about 31 != 33).

The related I-Ds in question are:
- draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-08 [ID-Abley]
- draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles [ID-BGPSEC]
- draft-housley-pkix-test-oids [ID-Housley]
  (slightly different category because it is in the RFC editor queue)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here].  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has a question about the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, IANA understands that in the SMI Security for Mechanism Codes registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

the entry for decimal value 7, "Public Key Infrastructure," will have its reference updated to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, as described in sections 3.2 through 3.34 of the current document, there are 33 new tables to be added to the SMI numbers registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

IANA Question: Section 3 of the current document indicates that there are 31 new tables to be added. However, IANA sees 33 tables in sections 3.2 through 3.34 of the document. Which is the intent of the author? 33 tables as specified in Sections 3.2 through 3.34, or some subset of those specifications?

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

(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 RFC.

  When the Public-Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Working Group
  was chartered, an object identifier arc was was allocated by IANA for
  use by that working group.  This document describes the object
  identifiers that were assigned in that arc, it returns control of
  that arc to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any
  future assignments within that arc.

(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

  When the Public-Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Working Group
  was chartered, an object identifier arc was was allocated by IANA for
  use by that working group.  This document describes the object
  identifiers that were assigned in that arc, it returns control of
  that arc to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any
  future assignments within that arc.

Working Group Summary

  This document is related to many RFCs that were produced by the
  PKIX WG.  That WG is closed, but the mail list remains open.  The
  mail list was asked to comment on the document.  Supportive
  responses were received.

Document Quality

  The constants in this document have already been assigned, and they
  are in wide use.

Personnel

  Russ Housley is document author and shepherd.
  Sean Turner 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.

  IDnits was run.  This document necessarily references some RFCs
  that are obsolete.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  No concerns to raise.

(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.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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?

  Some of these constants were assigned years ago.  Others were
  assigned more recently.  People that develop software need them.

(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.

(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 provides some warnings.  They are discussed above.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Expert review was needed to assign future values, and then the
  document was shared with the PKIX mail list.

(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.

(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.

(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.

  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).

  The document was shared with the PKIX mail list.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  None.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Object Identifier Registry for the PKIX Working Group'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-02-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  When the Public-Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Working Group
  was chartered, an object identifier arc was was allocated by IANA for
  use by that working group.  This document describes the object
  identifiers that were assigned in that arc, it returns control of
  that arc to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any
  future assignments within that arc.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-pkix-oids/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-pkix-oids/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Writeup for draft-housley-pkix-oids-00


(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 RFC.

  When the Public-Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Working Group
  was chartered, an object identifier arc was was allocated by IANA for
  use by that working group.  This document describes the object
  identifiers that were assigned in that arc, it returns control of
  that arc to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any
  future assignments within that arc.

(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

  When the Public-Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Working Group
  was chartered, an object identifier arc was was allocated by IANA for
  use by that working group.  This document describes the object
  identifiers that were assigned in that arc, it returns control of
  that arc to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any
  future assignments within that arc.

Working Group Summary

  This document is related to many RFCs that were produced by the
  PKIX WG.  That WG is closed, but the mail list remains open.  The
  mail list was asked to comment on the document.  Supportive
  responses were received.

Document Quality

  The constants in this document have already been assigned, and they
  are in wide use.

Personnel

  Russ Housley is document author and shepherd.
  Sean Turner 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 is very straightforward.  IDnits was run.  It reports
  two things that should be corrected with RFC Editor notes:

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC3039' is mentioned on line 709
  == Missing Reference: 'RFC4985' is mentioned on line 659

  Note: This document necessarily references some RFCs that are
  obsolete.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  No concerns to raise.

(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.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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?

  Some of these constants were assigned years ago.  Others were
  assigned more recently.  People that develop software need them.

(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.

(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 provides some warnings.  They are discussed above.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Expert review was needed to assign future values, and then the
  document was shared with the PKIX mail list.

(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.

(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.

(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.

  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).

  The document was shared with the PKIX mail list.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  None.