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 1 November 2019.

(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?

draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel is targeted as Informational status document,
and this write­up is for the same. Informational is appropriate because this
document simply presents an example of the Key Distributor and Media
Distributor to be connected.This is reflected on the title page and in the data

(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 a DTLS tunneling protocol for use in multimedia
conferences that enables a Media Distributor to facilitate key
exchange between an endpoint in a conference and the Key Distributor.
The protocol is designed to ensure that the keying material used for
hop-by-hop encryption and authentication is accessible to the media
distributor, while the keying material used for end-to-end encryption
and authentication is inaccessible to the media distributor.

Working Group Summary

This document has been discussed and reviewed several times by the
WG. Given the nature of work proposed by this document as defining
one of the ways to setup protocol machinery between
a key distributor and the end points for providing keying material
needed for PERC double encryption procedures,  there was a general
consensus to move forward with this document in the WG.

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?

An earlier version of the draft was implemented along with
PERC double and EKT implementations to realize the protocol
workings for end to end encryption.
This document did not require expert review of the types noted.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

The document shepherd is Suhas Nandakumar; the responsible Area Director is
Murray S. Kucherawy.

(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.

This document has been reviewed and discussed several times with in
the WG. It has been reviewed by personnel from Security Area.
(Special thanks to Russ Housley)

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

I do not have any concerns about the working group reviews to date.

(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.

It has been reviewed by Russ Housley from Security Area.

(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 that I am aware of.

(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 are IPR declaration at

(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?

The working group as a whole concurs with this approach as one of the
ways to achieve the goal for setting up keying for end to end encryption.

(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 threats of appeal or otherwise.

(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

No nits were found when verified on the version

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

This document does not present the need for these reviews.

(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?

Not applicable.

(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 no requests for downward references.

(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.

This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

This document establishes a new registry to contain message type
values used in the DTLS Tunnel protocol. The name for this registry is
 "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Tunnel Protocol Data Types for
 Privacy Enhanced Conferencing" The update is not controversial within
the working group.

(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.

This document establishes a new registry to contain message type
values used in the DTLS Tunnel protocol. The name for this registry is
 "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Tunnel Protocol Data Types for
 Privacy Enhanced Conferencing" The update is not controversial within
the working group.   Future allocations needs a specification to update
the registry.

(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.

ABNF content in the document was validated with

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
( 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
RFC8342? Not Applicable