(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?
There are already a number of applications that use the PKCS#11 URI scheme as
outlined in the draft.
(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:
This draft defines a URI scheme for PKCS#11 objects, tokens, and libraries.
Working Group Summary
A PKCS#11 related draft, such as this, does not have a related WG now that the
PXIX WG has concluded.
There are several implementations of the specification.
The draft has been well vetted on the SAAG and URI-review lists.
The final request for review on 10/14/14 found no comments, good or bad.
Shepherd: Shawn Emery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Area Director (Security): Stephen Farrell <email@example.com>
(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.
The shepherd has reviewed multiple revisions of this draft since over a year
ago. The shepherd believes that this revision (16) of the draft is ready.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The draft has been reviewed by the security area and URI experts.
(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.
Yes. The draft has had review from the URI-Review members. SAAG members have
also reviewed the draft. IANA has allocated a provisional registry for the
(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns from the shepherd of this draft.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?
Consensus is strong for this draft. There have been several implementations
of the specified scheme and has been sent out for multiple reviews by the
affected communities with no dissenting opinions or concerns.
(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.
There is only one warning, which is a false-positive on IPv4 address formatting.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft has been reviewed multiple times on the URI-Review list.
(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?
(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.
(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).
A provisional registry in IANA already exists based on this draft. The intent
is to transition this to a permanent URI scheme registry when the draft becomes
(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.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The PKCS#11 URI scheme was reviewed by URI-Review members multiple times.
ABNF was checked and found two errors. Changes to fix ABNF:
pk11-module-name = "module-name" = *pk11-qchar
pk11-module-path = "module-path" = *pk11-qchar
pk11-module-name = "module-name" "=" *pk11-qchar
pk11-module-path = "module-path" "=" *pk11-qchar