# Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-09
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
There is support in the LAMPS WG for this document. The discussion was
very active, and LAMPS WG consensus was reached.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There was much controversy, especially about the private key format,
which is specified in the companion document (draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-
certificates). The LAMPS WG reached a place that everyone can live
with the result, even though everyone is not happy. That is, the two
documents represent a place where all parties are equally unhappy.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)
The patent situation was not addressed to the satisfaction of all parties.
The following messages in the archive represent the best summary of the
patent situation. Only one person has expressed concern, and the
potential patent holder has not chosen to make an IPR disclosure.
Further, despite the discussion, no one has made a third-party IPR
disclosure.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/GKFhHfBeCgf8hQQvhUcyOJ6M-kI/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/jhpFJNGrmBn1D9oEDZHAuqfzleY/
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Some code written, which is the reason that the private key format
discussion became so difficult. No implementer wanted to make changes.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
No concerns about interaction with other technologies.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No special reviews are needed.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
This document does not include a YANG module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
ASN.1 is used. Once a placeholder value is inserted for the module
identifier that will be assigned by IANA, the ASN.1 module in Appendix A
compiler without error.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
No concerns were noticed.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
As reflected in the Datatracker: Proposed Standard on the IETF Stream.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
In addition to the points made in response to question 3, the authors have
explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR that needs to be declared.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
page is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
IDnits complains about the document lacking "the recommended RFC 2119
boilerplate". It is incorrect. The boilerplate is present in Section 1.1,
and the document contains references for [RFC2119] and [RFC8174].
IDnits gets confused by the square brackets in the ASN.1, but I do not
see any problems.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No concerns.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All references are freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
There are two normative DOWNREFs: RFC 3394 and RFC 5869. Both are
already in the DOWNREF registry.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
One normative references has not been published yet: draft-ietf-lamps-
kyber-certificates. This document is already with the IESG. It is
very likely that it will be published at the same time as this document.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No, this document will not change the status of any other document.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
IANA is requested to assign an object identifier (OID) for the ASN.1
module identifier.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
No new IANA registries are needed.