(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 as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker.
(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:
A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces
that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and
that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by
any code outside that environment. This architecture document
motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing
the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE.
Working Group Summary:
The draft was adopted in July 2018 with good WG support for adoption. The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The co-authors of this document are from some of the leading vendors in offering TEE and with extensive experience with the related technologies and implementations, they are also the authors of the TEEP Protocol WG draft which guarantees consistency.
The draft is mature enough after several revisions and there is strong consensus in the WG to pass the WGLC and go to next stage.
K Tirumaleswar Reddy (shepherd)
Benjamin Kaduk (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 reviewed the document and found it is ready.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and presentations in IETF meetings.
(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.
I personally don't think that more 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.
(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?
All authors and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
** Mingliang Pei -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/qkfDsxfI9I8GOhhexf0ukaK6Cy0/
** Hannes Tschofenig -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/_S-3-YLStjm7Sf0RSkUhxhOFkvc/
** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/Ega8haQM5plqI6ycqz8K4jQ_LG4/
** David Wheeler – No IPR (DaveW responded to the WG chairs and co-authors of the draft).
(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 has been filed that reference 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 consensus is solid.
(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.)
(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 reported no issues.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as 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?
Normative references do not exist in this document.
(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.
(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, publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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).
No new IANA registries are defined by this 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.
The draft has no IANA actions.
(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 does not define any YANG module.
(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 draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.