Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-07-03
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-06-14
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-06-07
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2017-06-06
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2017-04-27
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2017-01-23
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2017-01-23
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-01-23
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-01-23
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2017-01-23
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-01-23
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-01-23
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-01-23
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-01-19
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | I checked the text in light of the SecDir review, and the changes have already been incorporated in -04. |
2017-01-19
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed |
2017-01-19
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-01-19
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-01-19
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-01-19
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] I'm happy to see it go out the door. thanks for all the effort in the review cycle. |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I think the secdir reviewer [1] and authors agreed on a couple of minor changes that it'd be good to make. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=secdir&gbt=1&index=Ro20P04lGSg2-nldZmzZL1TLY94 |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-01-18
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-01-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-01-17
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-01-16
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-01-16
|
04 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] This document (still) has a lot of redundancy, mostly due to the chosen structure of the doc. I guess it's too late to … [Ballot comment] This document (still) has a lot of redundancy, mostly due to the chosen structure of the doc. I guess it's too late to change anything but it really makes it harder to get the actual message of this doc. |
2017-01-16
|
04 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-01-14
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2017-01-14
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2017-01-14
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-01-14
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-01-12
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-01-12
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2017-01-12
|
04 | Di Ma | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-04.txt |
2017-01-12
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-12
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: sidr-chairs@ietf.org, "Di Ma" , "Stephen Kent" |
2017-01-12
|
04 | Di Ma | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-11
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Need an updated ID to address the IETF Last Call. |
2017-01-11
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-01-11
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-01-11
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-01-10
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-01-09
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2017-01-05
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Brian Weis. |
2017-01-02
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Qin Wu. |
2016-12-29
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-12-29
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03.txt, 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-12-24
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2016-12-24
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2016-12-22
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-12-22
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-12-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2016-12-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions@ietf.org, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, "Chris Morrow" , sidr@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions@ietf.org, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, "Chris Morrow" , sidr@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG (sidr) to consider the following document: - 'Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-10. 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 analyzes actions by or against a CA or independent repository manager in the RPKI that can adversely affect the Internet Number Resources (INRs) associated with that CA or its subordinate CAs. The analysis is done from the perspective of an affected INR holder. The analysis is based on examination of the data items in the RPKI repository, as controlled by a CA (or independent repository manager) and fetched by Relying Parties (RPs). The analysis does not purport to be comprehensive; it does represent an orderly way to analyze a number of ways that errors by or attacks against a CA or repository manager can affect the RPKI and routing decisions based on RPKI data. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03 === I have some comments (see below) that should be easily addressed. I am going to start the IETF Last … === AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03 === I have some comments (see below) that should be easily addressed. I am going to start the IETF Last Call and schedule this document in the next available IESG Telechat. Thanks! Alvaro. C1. The correct reference for BGPsec is I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol (not I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview). The reference to I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview can then be eliminated. C2. RFC2119 keywords. It seems to me that both uses of “MAY” (only that keyword is used) refer to facts and not normative actions defined in this document. Please s/MAY/may and take out the RFC2119 boilerplate and reference. C3. For consistency, use the complete identifiers. For example: s/A-1.1 or 1.4.3/A-1.1 or A-1.4.3 C4. s/the 3779 extensions/the [RFC3779] extensions C5. I think that the following references can be made Informative: RFC5652, RFC7132. C6. RFC6485 has been obsoleted by RFC7935. |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-01-19 |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-12-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Chris Morrow" <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, aretana@cisco.com from "Chris Morrow" <morrowc@ops-netman.net> |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? Informational (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 analyzes actions by or against a CA or independent repository manager in the RPKI that can adversely affect the Internet Number Resources (INRs) associated with that CA or its subordinate CAs. The analysis is done from the perspective of an affected INR holder. The analysis is based on examination of the data items in the RPKI repository, as controlled by a CA (or independent repository manager) and fetched by Relying Parties (RPs). The analysis does not purport to be comprehensive; it does represent an orderly way to analyze a number of ways that errors by or attacks against a CA or repository manager can affect the RPKI and routing decisions based on RPKI data. 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? There was initially rough/loud discussion on this document, at WGLC more discussion around some wording choices ensued. Finally rough consensus for the intent and wording was reached.. 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? This document is an outline of some of the potential pitfalls around the CAs in use in the SIDR world. The document is of fine quality at this point in time. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? DS: morrowc@ops-netman.net - Chris Morrow AD: aretana@cisco.com - Alvaro Retana (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 Shepherd reviewed the document during the WG process, and during the WGLC, additionally the shepherd helped to work through some wording discussions/problems between the editors and WG members. (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. no expert review necessary. (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. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. no ipr concerns == no filings (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 consensus is fairly solid at this point (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 (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. there is a single warning for an obsolete normative reference, which will be addressed prior to auth48. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. no formal review 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? no (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. no changes to current documents. (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). no IANA considerations (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, etc. no review necessary. |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | Changed document writeup |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | Notification list changed to "Chris Morrow" <morrowc@ops-netman.net> |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | Document shepherd changed to Chris Morrow |
2016-10-25
|
03 | Chris Morrow | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2016-09-13
|
03 | Di Ma | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03.txt |
2016-09-13
|
03 | Di Ma | New version approved |
2016-09-13
|
03 | Di Ma | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Dr. Stephen T. Kent" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, "Di Ma" |
2016-09-13
|
03 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-05
|
02 | Stephen Kent | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-02.txt |
2016-07-25
|
01 | Stephen Kent | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-01.txt |
2016-07-19
|
00 | Sandra Murphy | Added to session: IETF-96: sidr Thu-1000 |
2016-07-14
|
00 | Sandra Murphy | let's correct that. back filling history - wglc issued on list 30 Jun to end 14 Jul. no time travel needed. |
2016-07-14
|
00 | Sandra Murphy | back filling history - wglc issued on list 30 Jun to end 14 Jun |
2016-07-14
|
00 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-04-15
|
00 | Sandra Murphy | This document now replaces draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions instead of None |
2016-04-15
|
00 | David Mandelberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-00.txt |