Shepherd writeup
rfc6797-14

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec.
by: Tobias Gondrom (as WG chair and shepherd)

(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?

Intended status: Standards Track
The document introduces a new HTTP header to protect websites against
man-in-the-middle attacks, and therefore needs to be Standards Track.

(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.

The specification defines a mechanism enabling web sites to declare
themselves accessible only via secure connections, and/or for users
to be able to direct their user agent(s) to interact with given sites
only over secure connections.  This overall policy is referred to as
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS).  The policy is declared by web
sites via the Strict-Transport-Security HTTP response header field,
and/or by other means, such as user agent configuration, for example.

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?

There was a good discussion in the WG on HSTS over an extended period of time.
Most of the draft consensus appears to be pretty strong. Discussion activity in the last 4
weeks during WGLC has been relatively low, though no hot controversies did show up.

There is one last-minute item raised in Paris that was less discussed than could have
been: whether the HSTS header should have a "report-only" feature. There was some
minor discussion and so far it appears that rough consensus is for the draft as it is
(without adding that feature), but the number of votes for this feature was not very high.

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?

The document is in good quality.
The ABNF was reviewed and verified by several experts and appears to be correct.
The header is already deployed and implemented by several websites and browser
implementations.

Personnel
  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Shepherd: Tobias Gondrom
AD: Barry Leiba

(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.

A full read of the draft. The document is ready for publication.

(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 special review requests.
AppsDir and SecDir should do reviews as normal.

(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.

There are no concerns from the document shepherd. The draft is good, needed
and ready to go.

(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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(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?

There is a good and strong consensus behind this document. The existence
of "running code" further strengthens the case for this drafts.

(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.

(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 checked and is ok. There were warnings which have been discussed and are ok.

[The AD disagrees with this, and will ask for a document update to address the warnings.]

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Review of a new HTTP header field by the Designated Expert (Graham Klyne).
No further additional formal review criteria.

[AD: Does that mean that Graham *has* reviewed it and approved, or that it still needs to happen?]

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes. Plus see #11 regarding idnits.

(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.

(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 3 downrefs to Informational RFCs (RFC 2818, RFC 5894, RFC 5895). These
have been reconfirmed with the authors and co-chairs as Ok.

(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.

(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 section is consistent with the body and fairly simple and straight forward.
Adding one HTTP Header field name, defined as per RFC3864.
Header field name: Strict-Transport-Security Applicable protocol: HTTP Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF Specification document(s): this one

(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.

(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 was an expert review on the ABNF.
Checked with BAP and verified.
Back