Shepherd writeup
rfc7301-05

(reflowed to make it readable 2/2/14)

(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 type of RFC request is Proposed Standard. Standards track is
appropriate because it is generally useful for the internet and
reflects the consensus of the TLS working group.

(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 Transport Layer Security
(TLS) extension for application layer protocol negotiation within the
TLS handshake. For instances in which the TLS connection is
established over a well known TCP/IP port not associated with the
desired application layer protocol, this extension allows the
application layer to negotiate which protocol will be used within the
TLS session.

Working Group Summary: The main point of controversy with this
document was on encryption of the extension. The working group decided
a cleartext extension with the future general facility to encrypt
extensions in TLS 1.3 was preferable to an extension specific
encryption mechanism for ALPN.

Document Quality: A number of vendors have implemented the protocol
specified in this document. This document was also reviewed by members
of the HTTPbis working group as it is useful for indicating what
protocol is carried by TLS.

Personnel: Joe Salowey is the document shepherd and Sean Turner is the
responsible AD.

(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 shepherd has reviewed the document and checked it for ID
nits. THe document is ready for publication.

(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.

The document has been reviewed by participants of the HTTPbis working
group. They participated throughout the document development process
and held a final review at the end of TLS working group last call.

(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

(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

(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 disclosure has been filed

(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 represents strong consensus

(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

(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.

The document has passed ID-NITS

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

No special formal review was required.

(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?

All normative references are published

(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 downward normative 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 other RFCs.

(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 shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section and it is
consistent with the document and registries clearly defined.

(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.

The document defines a new Application Layer Protocol Negotiation
(ALPN) Protocol IDs registry. There are specific instructions to the
expert in the IANA section. Since it is under the TLS registries it
would make sense to select experts who know TLS.

(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 used in document
Back