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? A Proposed
Standard RFC is being requested and is indicated on the title page header.
(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 specifies a new certificate type and two TLS extensions
for exchanging raw public keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for use with out-of-band
public key validation
Working Group Summary:
In general the consensus around the document is strong. THe main area of
contention was in the reuse of the certificate type registry. This has been
satisfactorily resolved.
Document Quality:
THere are a number of implementations of the protocol in progress. This
document has had review by members of the DANE working group and the LWIG
working group.
Personnel:
Joe Salowey is the Document Shepherd. Sean Turner 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 document shepherd has reviewed the document for readability, technical
content and ID nits. The document shepherd believes this 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 had significant review from the TLS working group. In addition, members of
the DANE working group and LWIG working group, which are consumers of this
work, have reviewed it.
(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 Specific
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? Each author has confirmed that any IPR
has been disclosed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No
disclosure has 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? THere was strong consensus in the
working group for this document.
(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. THere is an
out of date reference to an ID that can be updated and one line length issue
that can be addressed by the RFC editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable.
(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? Normative references are in a
clear state.
(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. THis document odes not change the status of 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 referenced registries are clearly identified. THere are no newly
created 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. THere are no new
registries.
(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.