As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
The draft requested status is Standard, as indicated on the title
page. This is appropriate as it is defining a security protection
for database objects that are vital to Internet operations, where the
protection must be implemented in multiple databases and is used
by diverse users of the multiple databases.
(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:
This document describes a method to allow parties to electronically
sign Routing Policy Specification Language objects and validate such
electronic signatures. This allows relying parties to detect
accidental or malicious modifications on such objects. It also
allows parties who run Internet Routing Registries or similar
databases, but do not yet have Routing Policy System Security-based
authentication of the maintainers of certain objects, to verify that
the additions or modifications of such database objects are done by
the legitimate holder(s) of the Internet resources mentioned in those
objects. This document updates RFC 2622 and RFC 4012 to add the
signature attribute to supported RPSL objects.
Working Group Summary
This document has been in the working group for a long time, and has
been presented at IETF75, IETF77, IETF78, and IETF92. The wg
has been asked periodically to confirm continued interest, and has
each time indicated that the work is valuable and should continue.
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?
The work mentioned here is applicable to routing registries
that use the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL).
Most, if not all, routing registries use RPSL. This new
attribute has been implemented in IRRd, a commonly used
implementation of RPSL.
Geoff Huston and Stephen Kent both performed thorough
reviews, resulting in important changes.
No expert review was required.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Shepherd: Sandra Murphy
Responsible AD: 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 document shepherd has reviewed the document, identified a few
ambiguities which have been resolved with the authors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. This document has been reviewed by the wg multiple times.
(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
There is no need for a broader review.
(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
The document shepherd has 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 document authors have all confirmed they know of no needed
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There is no IPR disclosure filed for this document.
(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 has confirmed more than once that they are interested
in this work and have reviewed it multiple times.
(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.)
There has been neither threat of an appeal nor extreme discontent.
(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
The idnits tool reports no errors.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has no content that requires formal review.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, the references are all identified as normative.
(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, all references are published RFCs.
(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.
The idnits tool reports no downward normative references.
(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 updates RFC2622 and RFC4012 with a new attribute type.
That is indicated in the abstract and discussed in the introduction.
(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 IANA considerations section reports no need for IANA actions.
That is consistent with the body of the document.
(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.
This document creates no new IANA registries.
(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.
There are no sections of the document written in a formal language.