Suite B Profile of Certificate Management over CMS
draft-turner-suiteb-cmc-03

[Ballot comment]
5.1. RA Processing of Requests

  RAs conforming to this document MUST ensure that only the permitted
  signature, hash, and MAC algorithms described throughout this profile
  are used in requests; if they are not, the CA MUST reject those

s/CA/RA ?

  requests.  The RA SHOULD return a CMCFailInfo with the value of
  badAlg [RFC5272].

6.1. CA Processing of PKI Requests

  When processing end-entity generated SignedData objects, RAs MUST NOT

s/RAs/CAs ?

  perform Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Content Constraints (CCC)
  certificate extension [CCC] processing.

1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Sean Turner

Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular,

Yes.

does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the
IESG for publication?

Yes.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others?

Yes. Requests for comments for the -00 was sent to the PKIX WG. It was
briefed at IETF 77 to the PKIX WG. It was also reviewed internally at
authors' organization.

Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues
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.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document?

This is a profile from a particular organization. I have been told
there is agreement within the appropriate parts of that organization
that this is the desired profile.

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?

It is impossible to measure this for an organization-specific profile.
However, I assume there is a strong concurrence within the organization.

(1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.)

Not to my knowledge.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).

Yes.

Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

No formal review checks are needed for this document; however, this is
a profile of CMC and the primary author of CMC was consulted after
version -00 was published.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

Yes.

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 strategy for their completion?

No.

Are there normative references that are downward references, as
described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to
support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

No.

Note that there are two normative references to in-progress Internet
Drafts; it is expected that the RFC Editor will hold publication of
this document until that document has been published.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the
document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations
requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries
clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it
define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable
name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Not applicable.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker?

Not applicable.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup?
Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for
approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following
sections:

Technical Summary

This is a profile of RFC 5272-5274 (Certificate Management over CMS)
that is specific to the United States National Security Agency's Suite
B Cryptography specification. In essence, it profiles RFC 5272-5274 to
meet the Suite B requirements.

Working Group Summary

The document was announced on the PKIX WG mailing list, and some
off-list comments were sent to the document authors. There was also a
short presentation on the document at IETF 77. It was not appropriate
to discuss it in the WG itself.

Document Quality

It is expected that this document will be widely adopted by vendors
for the organization that wrote this profile. Most if not all of the
algorithms specified in this profile are already in at least one
popular open-source package.