Endpoint Posture Collection Profile
draft-ietf-sacm-epcp-01

(1) What type of RFC is being requested? Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Intended status: Standards Track. This is appropriate as the draft specifies the use of components, formats, and protocols.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.

Technical Summary:
This document specifies the Endpoint Posture Collection Profile, which describes the requirements for the application of IETF, TNC, and ISO/IEC data models, protocols, and interfaces to support the ongoing collection and communication of endpoint posture to a centralized server where it can be stored and made available to other tools.

Working Group Summary:
This document has been carefully reviewed by the working group since its inception ten revisions ago. There were no seriously contentious discussions within the scope of this draft. Initially, the draft was more NEA focused; however, subsequent revisions expanded it and made it more inclusive.

Document Quality:
This document is a profile of existing protocols. Vendors already implement the referenced protocols. Customers or enterprises would implement the profile in their deployments. The US Government is trying to implement the profile in its environments.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Karen O'Donoghue
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roman Danyliw


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

The shepherd reviewed the document for language and IETF process items. The working group performed the full technical review of the document. The document is ready for publication.


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

No.


(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?

There are no required reviews beyond those that will be conducted during the IETF publication process.

(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.

No specific concerns or issues.


(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.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No relevant IPR has been disclosed.


(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 reasonable for the small number of active participants in the working group. Those with the most comments historically have indicated their backing of this draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?

None are known.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

Two miscellaneous warnings (one about lack of the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, which can be added by the RFC Editor, and the other notes the publication date of the draft being 150 days in the past).

Several outdated references were detected.
Several possible downref possibilities were detected.
The authors are aware of these, and they plan for these to be addressed after submission in conjunction with the AD review.

(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 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, listed as follows:
* I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid
* I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif
* I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid
* I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology

We intend for these to be addressed after submission.


(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. ID-nits did detect possible downward references, but these are to mature non-IETF specifications.

(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.

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 8126).

This document does not define any new, or update any existing, IANA registries.


(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.

This document does not contain any formal language exhibits.


(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?

This document does not contain any YANG modules.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested? Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Intended status: Standards Track. This is appropriate as the draft specifies the use of components, formats, and protocols.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.

Technical Summary:
This document specifies the Endpoint Posture Collection Profile, which describes the requirements for the application of IETF, TNC, and ISO/IEC data models, protocols, and interfaces to support the ongoing collection and communication of endpoint posture to a centralized server where it can be stored and made available to other tools.

Working Group Summary:
This document has been carefully reviewed by the working group since its inception ten revisions ago. There were no seriously contentious discussions within the scope of this draft. Initially, the draft was more NEA focused; however, subsequent revisions expanded it and made it more inclusive.

Document Quality:
This document is a profile of existing protocols. Vendors already implement the referenced protocols. Customers or enterprises would implement the profile in their deployments. The US Government is trying to implement the profile in its environments.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Karen O'Donoghue
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roman Danyliw


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

The shepherd reviewed the document for language and IETF process items. The working group performed the full technical review of the document. The document is ready for publication.


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

No.


(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?

There are no required reviews beyond those that will be conducted during the IETF publication process.

(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.

No specific concerns or issues.


(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.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No relevant IPR has been disclosed.


(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 reasonable for the small number of active participants in the working group. Those with the most comments historically have indicated their backing of this draft.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?

None are known.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

Two miscellaneous warnings (one about lack of the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, which can be added by the RFC Editor, and the other notes the publication date of the draft being 150 days in the past).

Several outdated references were detected.
Several possible downref possibilities were detected.
The authors are aware of these, and they plan for these to be addressed after submission in conjunction with the AD review.

(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 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, listed as follows:
* I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid
* I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif
* I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid
* I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology

We intend for these to be addressed after submission.


(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. ID-nits did detect possible downward references, but these are to mature non-IETF specifications.

(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.

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 8126).

This document does not define any new, or update any existing, IANA registries.


(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.

This document does not contain any formal language exhibits.


(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?

This document does not contain any YANG modules.