Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-12

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.

(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-private-media-framework is targeted at the Standards track, 
and this write­up is for Proposed Standard. This is reflected on the title page 
and in the data tracker.

(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 describes a framework for enabling end-to-end encrypted
switched conferencing where the media distributor is not trusted to 
decrypt and encrypt the media.

Working Group Summary

The document defines the over arching framework for the Privacy Enhanced
RTP Conferencing WG. It has been extensively discussed in the begining of
the WG, but has been stable now for a long time.

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?

Since the IETF 102 hackathon a branch of Firefox exists which implements
the double encryption as per this framework document. libsrtp, a widely
used SRTP library, has Pull Requests has patches in Pull Requests waiting
to be merged. Cisco and Mozilla have both signaled desire to ship
implementations based on this document.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

The document shepherd is Nils Ohlmeier; the responsible Area Director
is Ben Campbell.

(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 document has been reviewed a few times. The design team at the
begining on the WG influenced core parts of the document. The shepherd
has reviewed the document.

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

I don't have any conerns about the review state of the document.

(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.

Not needed.

(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.

I'm not aware of any conerns at this point in time.

(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.

Yes all three listed author have confirmed via email the the shepherd.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR has been filed against this document.

(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 solid.

(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.) 

Not for this document.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Reference to RFC 4474 might need to be updated to RFC 8224.

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

This document doesn't need any formal reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(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?

This document references normatively draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel which
is not yet ready to for advancement. The PERC WG will work on this
after moving the initial three documents forward.


(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 documents IANA section is empty.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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.

Not applicable.

Back