(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?
This document is intended as Informational.
This document does not proscribe any specific protocol or mechanism, but
rather outlines a general technique. The details of how to do the
encryption, or how to deliver the encrypted configuration file are left to
vendors to define, using some choice of available protocols.
As such, it is inappropriate for this to be standards track.
(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 provides a guide for vendors to extend existing auto-install
/ Zero-Touch Provisioning mechanisms to make the process more secure for
operators.
Working Group Summary:
The document receives a modest amount of discussion and was reviewed by a
number of people who provided useful additions. Given that the document is
a guide and does not specify a directly implementable protocol, it was
difficult for reviewers to say very much about the protocol, as the details
will be up to vendors who implement this.
Document Quality:
No vendors have committed to implement this protocol.
The document still contains a number of editorial [] notes, some of which
make the document seem very uncertain. Ignoring the notes, the document is
actually quite mature.
No MIB or YANG doctor was needed.
Personnel:
The document shepherd is Michael Richardson.
The Responsible area Director is Ignas Bagdonas
(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 first read the document during the adoption discussion,
and reviewed it again end to end (version -05) during the WGLC.
A review of the differences from 00 to 05 was made to understand whether the
input of the WG was taken into account, it the changes seem reasonable.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
The document makes very soft security requirements, and has not at this point
received a security review. More security review was asked for by the WG at
various times, but it has not yet been received.
In the review of the mailing list, there were instances of threads of
comments from a few people, and it was not always clear from the interaction
if the comments were acted upon.
The document relies upon vendor practice to create key pairs, and for vendors
to create detailed mechanisms. It is difficult to throw any rocks at this
document, as there is no specific protocol to evaluate: equipment vendors
will have to do a lot of work to finish things out, and the results will be
vendor specific. (That's why this is not standards track)
(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 only component which is specifically mentioned is DHCP, and it does not
define any new DHCP behaviour or define any new DHCP options, so a DHCP
review is not necessary.
Had the document suggested a specific mechanism for encryption (CMS, OpenPGP,
JOSE, etc.) then a review there would be useful, but it leaves that decision
to vendors.
(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.
(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 confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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?
The WG consensus is weak. The document is the result of a strong concurrence
of a few individuals, most others are silent. As OPSAWG is a rather loose
group of people, this is probably as strong a consensus as one will get.
(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.
-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according
to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe
there should be IPv6 examples, too?
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
none were done, none required.
(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?
Yes.
The document speaks about DHCP, but does not reference any DHCP specifications.
Perhaps it should.
(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 WG considers it
unnecessary.
This document does not update any other document.
(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 8126).
There are no IANA Considerations, and none are needed.
(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 the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
none.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?
no YANG module.