RPKI Signed Object for Trust Anchor Key
draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-15

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, keyur@arrcus.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net
Subject: Protocol Action: 'RPKI Signed Object for Trust Anchor Key' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-15.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RPKI Signed Object for Trust Anchor Key'
  (draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-15.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the SIDR Operations Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Mahesh Jethanandani.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   A Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) is used by Relying Parties (RPs) in the
   Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to locate and validate a
   Trust Anchor (TA) Certification Authority (CA) certificate used in
   RPKI validation.  This document defines an RPKI signed object for a
   Trust Anchor Key (TAK), that can be used by a TA to signal the
   location(s) of the accompanying CA certificate for the current key to
   RPs, as well as the successor key and the location(s) of its CA
   certificate.  This object helps to support planned key rolls without
   impacting RPKI validation.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the 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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Russ Housley. The Responsible
   Area Director is Warren "Ace" Kumari.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note