Shepherd writeup
rfc8551-12

Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-06


(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?

  Proposed Standard.  Yes, the header calls for Standards Track.
  
  This new RFC will obsolete RFC 5751, which is a 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 specifies the message handling for S/MIME 4.0.
    The changes since S/MIME 3.2 include required support for
    authenticated encryption, increased RSA key sizes, moving old
    cryptographic algorithms to historic status, and requiring support
    for AES-256 GCM, ChaCha200-Poly1305, SHA-512, ECDSA with P-256,
    EdDSA, and Ed25519.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is strong consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    S/MIME has wide support, and several implementers have said that
    they will implement the new features in this document.

  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Eric Rescorla 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 shepherd did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  All issues raised have been resolved.


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

  No concerns.


(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.

  Several people that were involved in the S/MIME WG were part of the
  review that took place during LAMPS WG Last Call.


(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.

  No concerns.


(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 authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any
  additional IP that was introduced in the updates to the document.

  The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
  related to the document.


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

  These following IPR disclosures were issued against earlier versions
  of the S/MIME specifications.  They have not hindered widespread
  implementation.

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/166/
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1004/
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1153/
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1154/


(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?

  There is strong consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.


(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.


(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.

  This document, once it is approved, will obsolete RFC5751.


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

   The application/pkcs7-mime media type was registered a very long
   time ago.  This document adds the authEnveloped-data smime-type
   to support authenticated encryption.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

  Yes.  The section that shows the changes made to the progression
  of S/MIME specifications uses the RFC numbers of the obsoleted
  specifications in the section headings, but they do not also
  appear in square brackets, so IDnits does not think that they
  belong in the reference section.


(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?

  There are not any normative references to documents that are not
  ready for advancement.


(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 downward normative reference to Informational RFC 5753,
  but it is already in the downref registry.


(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 new RFC will obsolete RFC 5751.


(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 updates to the IANA registries are clear.


(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 needed.


(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.

  The ASN.1 module contained in Appendix A is unchanged from RFC 3851,
  except for the comment associated with prefersBinaryInside.  Thus,
  there is no reason to run another syntax check.
Back