> Document Writeup
>
> 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?
This document describes origin validation uses cases and what is and is not
supported by SIDR. Informational RFC seems appropriate.
The document type is indicated in the title page header.
> (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
>
> 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.
This document provides use cases, directions, and interpretations for
organizations and relying parties when creating or encountering RPKI
object scenarios in the public RPKI. All of the above are discussed
here in relation to the Internet routing system.
> 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?
One reviewer suggested to expand the usecases to cover ongoing work that is out
of the scope of the current document. The draft as is has utility at the
present time. Future documents can address additional usecases if and when
needed.
Nothing else to report, apart from the document taking a bit longer in the WG
than expected.
> 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?
Several prototype implementations (and even commercial for some parts) exist.
No special review was performed/needed.
> Personnel
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
> Director?
Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible AD.
> (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.
I read the whole document to make sure it is understandable (I believe it is),
I also checked id-nits and mailing list discussions for the past 6 months. I
also verified that all AS Numbers used in the document are from the "reserved
for examples" block. The document is using some IP addresses which are not for
use in examples, but the document correctly notes the fact. I think this is
appropriate.
> (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 additional reviews required
> (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 specific 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, all authors confirmed that.
> (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 disclosure was filed on 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?
While there weren't a huge number of reviews, the document seems to have
support of the WG and everybody who decided to comment on the mailing list
thought that it was ready for advancement.
> (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 threats of appeal were voiced
> (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.
id-nits reports some missing references (which are actually not references).
It also reports unused references: RFC 4055, 4893, 5652 which editors said they
will remove in the next revision.
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document doesn't require any formal review.
> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?
All references are either Normative or Informative.
> (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?
All Normative references are to 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.
There are no DownRefs.
> (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 doesn't change status of any existing RFC.
> (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 document has no IANA considerations. This is appropriate for this document,
as it doesn't define any new protocols or extensions.
> (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.
No new IANA registries created by this document.
> (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.
The document has no sections written in formal languages.