ASN.1 Translation
draft-ietf-pkix-asn1-translation-03

[Ballot discuss]
I like this document.  This guidance will aid the migration to the
  new ASN.1 syntax now that tools are readily available that use it.

  The only place that RFC 2119 language appreas is in the comments of
  ASN.1 from other specifications.  As such, I think that the following
  paragraph should be removed from the document:

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

[Ballot discuss]
I like this document.  This guidance will aid the migration to the
  new ASN.1 syntax now that tools are readily available that use it.

  The only place that RFC 2119 language appreas is in the comments of
  ASN.1 from other specifications.  As such, I think that the following
  paragraph should be removed from the document:

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Steve Kent is the Document Shepherd for this document and has reviewed this version of the document and believes it ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed? 

The document has received adequate review from key WG members and non-WG
members.  There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

There are no specific concerns to highlight to the AD or IESG.  No IPR disclosures have been filed related to this document.

  (1.e) 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 document was produced per working group request following debate focused on the draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1 draft.  The document has not been subject of much WG discussion but has received thorough review from ASN.1 experts. It provides a tutorial on how to convert modules written in 1988 ASN.1 syntax into the current version of ASN.1 (2002). PKIX has decided to use the newer version of ASN.1 going forward, to maintain better alignment with the X.509 base standards. Thus this is a helpful document for the many developers who have much greater familiarity with the older ASN.1 syntax.

  (1.f) 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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

One boilerplate nit that was identified, which can easily be fixed. There is no MIB,  non URIs, and the authors are ASN.1 experts.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? 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
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References have been split into normative and informative sections.


  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There are no IANA considerations, as noted in Section 5.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

There are no sections of the document written in a formal language, although the examples provided throughout the document are written in the 1988 and 2002 versions of ASN.1. As noted above, the authors are viewed as ASN.1 experts in the PKIX WG.

  (1.k) 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.
    Working Group Summary
        Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
        example, was there controversy about particular points or
        were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
        rough?
    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?

Technical Summary

This document is intended to provide guidance to specification authors and to implementers converting ASN.1 modules written using one version of ASN.1 to another version, without causing changes to the "bits on the wire". This document does not provide a comprehensive tutorial of any version of ASN.1.  Instead, it addresses ASN.1 features that are used in IETF security area specifications with focus on items that vary between the
two ASN.1 versions of interest (1988 and 2002).

Working Group Summary

The document was produced per working group request following debate focused on the draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1 draft.  Some working group members voiced concern that not all ASN.1 compilers currently in use support the 2002 syntax.  The document aims to explain the differences between ASN.1 versions, allowing specification authors and implementers to target the desired version of ASN.1.

Document Quality

The document does not define a protocol, so there are no implementations per se.  Steps described in the document are consistent with those used by the authors of draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1 to migrate from older syntax to new syntax.