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 1 November 2019.
(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 intended status is Proposed Standard. This will update RFC 8226,
which is a proposed standard. The status is indicated on the title page.
(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.
RFC 8226 defines a certificate extension to constrain Java Web Token
(JWT) claims that can be included in a PASSporT [RFC 8225]. If the
signer includes a JWT claim outside the constraint boundaries, the
recipient will reject the entire passport. This document describes
additional ways that the JWT claims can be constrained, namely the
addition of the "mustExclude" option to indicate claims that MUST NOT
appear in the PASSporT.
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?
The draft was generally well supported and non-controversial. A
previous version of the draft also included an "exludeValues" option to
indicate disallowed claim values. This option was removed after WGLC
discussion suggested that it would be easily circumvented for claims
with free-form values and not needed for claims with enumerated values.
The removal resulted in a second WGLC.
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, YANG 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 author has implemented a a module for the open source
pyasn1-modules library. The RFC that this updates is currently
implemented in a number of voice carrier networks, and is in fact a
regulatory requirement for US carriers as part of the FCC
anti-robocalling initiative.
The one version or another was reviewed by several people, including
the authors of RFC 8226 and your humble document shepherd. The removal
of "excludeValues" resulted from list discussion triggered by WGLC
comments. This change resulted in a second WGLC.
There has been no external expert review at the time of this report.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The document shepherd is Ben Campbell. The responsible AD is believed
by this shepherd to be Murray Kucherawy, but that is not yet indicated
in the datatracker.
(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.
This shepherd performed a detailed nits review, and believes it to be
ready for IESG review. The shepherd also performed multiple WGLC
reviews.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
This shepherd has no such 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.
In this shepherd's opinion, no such reviews are needed.
(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.
This shepherd has no such 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 author confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR, disclosed or
otherwise.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There have been no IPR disclosures.
(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 number of participants who have shown themselves to understand the
document is fairly small as working groups go, but they are the key
participants for most of STIR's work.
(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.)
This shepherd is not aware of any threats to appeal or any other angst
over this document.
(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.
IDNits 2.16.04 indicates that the draft does not mention the update of
RFC8226 in the abstract, but does mention that RFC. In this shepherd's
opinion, the fact of and reason for the update is clear from the
abstract.
It indicates a normative downref to RFC 5912 (informational). That RFC
is in the downref registry.
It indicates a stale informative reference to
draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd-09, which will almost certainly be updated
again before this draft is published as an RFC. It also registered some
false-positive detections of things that look like references but or
not, and seems to have interpreted the expiration date as the
publication date.
12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This shepherd is not aware of any formal requirements for this draft.
(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?
There are no such normative references.
(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 draft has a normative downref to RFC 5912 (informational). That RFC
is in the downref registry, and has been since 2010.
(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.
The document does not change the 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 8126).
The document requests assignments of two OIDs. These are consistent
with the use in the document body. The relevant regestries are clearly
identified. The document does not request creation of new 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.
This draft does not create any 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, YANG modules, etc.
The draft contains an ASN.1 module. The author has compiled it with the
OSS ASN.1 compiler (with placeholder OIDs pending assignment.)
(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?
The document does not contain a YANG module.