Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-rmt-sec-discussion-08

(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?

    This draft describes security considerations for Reliable Multicast Transport 
    building blocks and protocols.
    It is intended to be an Informational RFC as described in the title page header. 
    I believe Informational is proper type as the draft well fits the description 
    in Section 4.2.2 in RFC2026.

(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 draft describes security considerations for Reliable Multicast Transport 
    building blocks and protocols. It also provides the list of some elementary security 
    services and some technological building blocks and solutions so that it can help protocol 
    designers and implementors to archive desired security services.

    Some RMT documents individually discuss the risks and their own approach.
    This document consolidates these contents and provide a basis for further discussion 
    and potential resolution of any significant security issues that may exist.


Working Group Summary


    The draft has been discussed since 2007 and updated by the feedback from the community.  
    The draft has been stable as it is widely supported. No contention has been observed during WG last call.

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?


    The recent versions of the document have been reviewed and discussed by multiple working group participants.


Personnel:

    Document Shepherd is Yoshifumi Nishida
    Reponsible Area Director is Martin Stiemerling


(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.


    I've reviewed the documents and made several editorial suggestions. 
    I believe the quality of this draft is matured enough to be published.


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


    No. 


(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.


    No. 


(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 have no concerns about the document.


(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. Each author confirmed there is no IPR for this draft.  


(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 disclosures have been filed on 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?


    The document is supported in the WG meeting as well as in the ML. 
    The consensus was solid and clear.


(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 one has indicated discontent.


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


    This document is verified with idnits 2.12.16.


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

    I believe no formal review is needed.


(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?


    No. 

(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.


    No. 

(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.


    No.

(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 document does not involve any IANA considerations.


(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.


    There is no need to require expert review for future allocations.


(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.


    The document contains no formal language.
Back