ACME Integrations for Device Certificate Enrollment
draft-ietf-acme-integrations-17

[Ballot comment]
Once again I'd like to thank Ted Lemon for his OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-acme-integrations-16-dnsdir-telechat-lemon-2023-07-10/ ) and for following up on it to note that his comments were addressed. I'd also like to again thank Bo Wu for the OpsDir review, and the authors for addressing comments.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors for this work and to Deb for the shepherd's review.

Thanks as well to Ted Lemon for his 2 DNS directorate reviews.

May I write that I am somehow disappointed by the lack of reply and action by the authors about some IESG COMMENTs from the previous ballot? There is no requirement for a reply, so this is OK process-wise.
Cfr https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/MUJlmGBmXWZpipV9D2mNMzdmp-8/ or Murray's one.

[Ballot comment]
This document was originally reviewed by the IESG for the 2023-03-02 telechat as an informational status document.  Version -14 to -15 resolved the IESG DISCUSS and COMMENTs leading to an adequate number of ballots to pass.  However, IESG review suggested that the document should be published with PS status.  Therefore, the document was updated, sent through a second IETF LC, the IESG ballot was cleared and it is now returning to the IESG for second review (as a PS).

For a full history of your previous ballots, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/history/

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.

## NITS

"Roots CAs" -> "Root CAs"?

"The EST Registration Authority (RA) is configured with the DNS domain which it will issue certificates." That should be "for which", right?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-acme-integrations-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-06-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: acme-chairs@ietf.org, acme@ietf.org, decoole@radium.ncsc.mil, draft-ietf-acme-integrations@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (ACME Integrations for Device Certificate Enrollment) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Automated Certificate Management
Environment WG (acme) to consider the following document: - 'ACME
Integrations for Device Certificate Enrollment'
  as Proposed Standard

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-06-09. 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.

AD Note: This is the second IETF Last Call for this document.  IESG Review of this document in March 2023 resulting in changes in content, and status from Informational to Proposed Standard.  This status change requires a reconfirming consensus from the community.

Abstract


  This document outlines multiple advanced use cases and integrations
  that ACME facilitates without any modifications or enhancements
  required to the base ACME specification.  The use cases include ACME
  integration with EST, BRSKI and TEAP.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs: Clarification of RFC7030 CSR Attributes definition (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    draft-ietf-uta-use-san: Update to Verifying TLS Server Identities with X.509 Certificates (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

Based on the IESG feedback, this document's status is being changed from Informational to Proposed Standard.  Because of this status upgrade, another IETF Last Call is required.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

It has been discussed in-person at several IETF’s, and there has been light email discussion.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one implementation in development.  That work has been reported on the list.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, anima reviewed the draft, it was presented in emu and lamps.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There is none.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document is clearly written, easy to understand.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The Security Area list of issues have been addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard:  RFC2119 language is used to specify how these protocols should be used together in a secure manner.  All the datatracker state attributes are correct.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

yes

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

no

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Only https://1.ieee802.org/security/802-1ar which was published in 2017, and appears to be available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Those drafts are being actively worked. 

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are none.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

[Ballot comment]
I support John's DISCUSS, especially as it relates to BCP 14 keywords.  Moreover, the shepherd writeup doesn't explain the choice of status for this document, which might be relevant to this.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As usual on this topic, I support John Scudder's DISCUSS about the use BCP14 uppercase terms in an informational document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Deb Cooley for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus **albeit** it lacks the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Ted Lemon, the DNS directorate reviewer, please consider this int-dir review as if it was mine:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-acme-integrations-13-dnsdir-telechat-lemon-2023-03-01/ (it is dated of yesterday, but I still have to read authors' reply)

Please note that Bob Halley is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/reviewrequest/17100/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Abstract

Should the abstract add references to relevant RFC and/or expand the acronyms ? This would help readers to find this document. They are only expanded in section 2.

### Section 1

In this section, please expand EST, BRSKI, and TEAP.

`enable automated certificate enrollment for devices` should devices be qualified ? I.e., devices w/o a UI ?

### Section 2

`portion of the graph of all possible domain names` AFAIK the graph of all possible domain names is actually a tree (i.e., a restricted graph).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
The document is a good read, and the figures in it make the process very clear. Thanks for that work.

Just some minor comments:


      |                      | Publish DNS TXT      |          |
      |                      | "example.com"        |          |

      |                      | Delete DNS TXT      |          |
      |                      | "example.com"        |          |

This reads a little as if a TXT record with the content "example.com"
needs to be published and deleted. Maybe use 'Publish ACME DNS challange
in "example.com"' ?


        This ownership proof could have been by fulfilling an
        authorization challenge against the explicit identifier
        "pledge.example.com",

Where does "pledge" come from? Is this a normative reference to something?

If it is made up here, add some "for example" text to clarify this. And
use at least "_pledge" to avoid clashing with potential real hostnames
called pledge ?



NITS:

        which it will issue certificates.

s/\.$/ for./

[Ballot discuss]
# John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13
CC @jgscudder

## DISCUSS

This is an informational document but is using RFC 2119 keywords as though it were standards track. Most of these uses are in Section 8, but there are two in Sections 4 and 5. For example,

  If the CSR includes an identifier that the EST RA does not control,
  the RA MUST respond with a 4xx HTTP [RFC9110] error code.

That reads as though you are imposing the requirement de novo. I assume that is not correct, and what you're actually doing is describing what the underlying standards track document mandates. If that's the case, here and in other places you use 2119-style requirement keywords, it seems to me that you should reword to make it clear you're describing the consequences of an existing requirement, not creating a new one. On the other hand, if you're creating a new requirement, then shouldn't this be a standards track document?

An example of the former approach, with the quoted sentence, might be to reword it like

  If the CSR includes an identifier that the EST RA does not control,
  the RA will respond with a 4xx HTTP [RFC9110] error code.

I just changed "MUST" to "will", or if you want to be more specific could interpolate something like,

  If the CSR includes an identifier that the EST RA does not control,
  an RA that follows the requirements of RFC XXXX Sec YY
  will respond with a 4xx HTTP [RFC9110] error code.

The uses in Section 8 are more difficult for me; not being at all expert in this area I'm unable to reliably tell which if any of the MUSTs (and SHOULDs and so on) you're imposing are actually new requirements.

If you think there really are new requirements being imposed here that don't exist in the base document, but that this document really is only informational, please help me understand how to resolve this seeming contradiction. Thanks in advance.

(As an aside to the shepherd, I had hoped that item 11 of the shepherd writeup would help me understand how to resolve this question, but sadly the "why is this the proper type of RFC" portion was left unanswered. Maybe the shepherd was also bamboozled.)

[Ballot comment]
## NITS

"defintions" -> "definitions"

"Using graph theory" -> perhaps, "in the terminology of graph theory" or "to use the terminology of graph theory"?

"Roots CAs" -> "Root CAs"?

"The EST Registration Authority (RA) is configured with the DNS domain which it will issue certificates." That should be "for which", right?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting No Objection in the "This is outside my area of expertise" / "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem" sense of the term.
I've been called for jury duty, and so am relying heavily on Bo Wu's OpsDir (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-acme-integrations-12-opsdir-lc-wu-2023-01-20/) and Ted Lemon's DNSDIR (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-acme-integrations-13-dnsdir-telechat-lemon-2023-03-01/) reviews to help guide me. Thank you very much, Bo and Ted.

While Ted does say that "at this point that the concerns I raised have been addressed and the document is ready to go", I'd strongly encourage the authors to reconsider addressing the comments in the first two paragraphs of his review; I think that they would further improve the document...

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting No Objection in the "This is outside my area of expertise" / "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem" sense of the term.
I've been called for jury duty, and so am relying heavily on Bo Wu's OpsDir (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-acme-integrations-12-opsdir-lc-wu-2023-01-20/) and Ted Lemon's DNSDIR (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-acme-integrations-13-dnsdir-telechat-lemon-2023-03-01/) reviews to help guide me.

While Ted does say that "at this point that the concerns I raised have been addressed and the document is ready to go", I'd strongly encourage the authors to reconsider addressing the comments in the first two paragraphs of his review; I think that they would further improve the document...

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to John Levine for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/efQ6-4iasbvkX8lCcXKANlxaq4E/

I would encourage the authors to take a look at John's comments, which provide good input for clarification for non-expert readers.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Tim Evens for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Sxu_T3P5jpR7uj3s6Pfak2f6Jes).

## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term `traditionally`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`,
  `common`, `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`,
  `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`,
  `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 2, paragraph 2
```
-    defintions:
+    definitions:
+        +
```

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-uta-use-san-00`, but `-10` is the latest
available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4, paragraph 7
```
RFC9110] error code. Refer to section Section 8.5 for further details on err
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5, paragraph 1
```
he /simpleenroll API. Refer to section Section 8.2 for more details. If the C
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5, paragraph 2
```
RFC9110] error code. Refer to section Section 8.5 for further details on err
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 8.2, paragraph 2
```
5272] response, or may return a human readable error in the response body. If
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-acme-integrations-13
CC @ekline

## Comments

### S4, etc

* I guess there's no validation that client.example.com has not been
  delegated to an entity for which the EST RA does NOT have DNS update
  abilities.

Please address the typos found by the OPSDIR review; and discuss and revise per the ARTART and DNSDIR reviews.  Both ARTART and DNSDIR seemed to have related comments about text in Section 9.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-acme-integrations-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: acme-chairs@ietf.org, acme@ietf.org, decoole@radium.ncsc.mil, draft-ietf-acme-integrations@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (ACME Integrations) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Automated Certificate Management
Environment WG (acme) to consider the following document: - 'ACME
Integrations'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-01-20. 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


  This document outlines multiple advanced use cases and integrations
  that ACME facilitates without any modifications or enhancements
  required to the base ACME specification.  The use cases include ACME
  integration with EST, BRSKI and TEAP.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

It has been discussed in-person at several IETF’s, and there has been light email discussion.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one implementation in development.  That work has been reported on the list.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, anima reviewed the draft, it was presented in emu and lamps.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There is none.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document is clearly written, easy to understand.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The Security Area list of issues have been addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

yes

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

no

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Only https://1.ieee802.org/security/802-1ar which was published in 2017, and appears to be available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Those drafts are being actively worked. 

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are none.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

It has been discussed in-person at several IETF’s, and there has been light email discussion.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one implementation in development.  That work has been reported on the list.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, anima reviewed the draft, it was presented in emu and lamps.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There is none.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document is clearly written, easy to understand.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The Security Area list of issues have been addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

yes

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

no

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Only https://1.ieee802.org/security/802-1ar which was published in 2017, and appears to be available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Those drafts are being actively worked. 

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are none.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/