Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

This is the writeup for Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time 
Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer 
Security (DTLS) (draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10) by
Magnus Westerlund (WG chair)

(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?

The document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. The 
document updates a standards track RFC as well as modifies some IANA

(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

   This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS),
   Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), RTP Control Protocol (RTCP),
   Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), Traversal Using Relays
   around NAT (TURN), and ZRTP packets are multiplexed on a single
   receiving socket.  It overrides the guidance from RFC 5764 ("SRTP
   Extension for DTLS"), which suffered from four issues described and
   fixed in this document.

Working Group Summary

  There has been good consensus in the AVTCORE WG. However, due 
  to potential impact on the other protocols (TLS and STUN/TURN), 
  this document was also last called in TLS and TRAM WG. This 
  resulted in some changes to ensure the solution was mutually 

Document Quality

  There are not yet any known implementations of this fix. The 
  document has been well reviewed and last called in several WG
  to ensure that the protocol impacts was acceptable by the 
  different main responsible WGs. 


  Magnus Westerlund is the Document Shepherd. Ben Campbell is the 
  Responsible Area Director.

(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 the document several times during the 
development of the document. The last full review was on the -09 version
during for which the latest last call was done on.  

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, it has been well reviewed with sufficient cross review. 

(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.


(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.

No concerns. The main issue has been to ensure sufficient review from the 
WG's which are impacted by this update.

(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 WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

There was one filed, but that has been retracted by the submitter prior 
to the WG last calls. 

(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?   

It is a solid consensus from a number of individuals in AVTCORE. With 
some additional supporters from other WGs in which last call has been 

(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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

Yes. There is one ID-nit noted and explained here.

One is reference to DTLS 1.0 (RFC4347), which is needed as both DTLS 1.0 and 
DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347) are being discussed.

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

No formal reviews needed. 

(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 WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes, this updates one RFC. It is listed. 

(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 updated IANA sections is one of the main purposes of these documents. 
So in general the review have been focused on this. The shepherd has verified
that the IANA section correctly identifies the relevant registries.

(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 registries, only updates of existing ones. 

(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.

No formal language present.