Shepherd writeup
rfc7350-05

> 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)?

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Because it defines a new transport protocol for STUN.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

> (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
> 
>   Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
>   and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
>   an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
>   or introduction.
> 
> Working Group Summary
> 
>   Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
>   example, was there controversy about particular points or 
>   were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
>   rough?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Personnel
> 
>   Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
>   Director?

Technical Summary

  This document specifies the usage of Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
  as a transport protocol for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN).  It
  also specifies modifications to the STUN URIs and TURN URIs and to the TURN
  resolution mechanism to facilitate the resolution of STUN URIs and TURN URIs
  into the IP address and port of STUN and TURN servers supporting DTLS as a
  transport protocol.

Working Group Summary

  This is the first document produced by the TRAM working group. No controversy
  was experienced. Many different people have provided feedback and guidance.
  Some of the harder questions:

  - What cipher suite to specify as mandatory?
  - How to ensure that a hostname is available for certificate validation?

Document Quality

  Two existing implementations are listed in section 5. RTCWEB implementers have
  demonstrated interest.

  This draft has continuously been reviewed by many different people throughout
  its history.  While the TRAM WG is composed primarily of NAT traversal
  experts, TLS experts have been solicited and have provided very helpful
  feedback, particularly at the IETF 89 meeting.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Simon Perreault
  Responsible Area Director: Spencer Dawkins

> (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.

Full review + nit checker.

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

No concerns.

> (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.

TLS experts have been solicited and have provided very helpful feedback,
particularly at the IETF 89 meeting.

> (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?   

Consensus represents the whole WG.

> (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 such threats have been made.

> (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.

No nits have been found.

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

No such reviews were done.

> (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 to RFCs.

> (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 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.

Revision -03 (the current revision as of this write-up writing) added this header:

Updates: 5389, 5928 (if approved)

A sentence needs to be added at the end of the abstract:

Abstract

   This document specifies the usage of Datagram Transport Layer
   Security (DTLS) as a transport protocol for Session Traversal
   Utilities for NAT (STUN).  It provides guidances on when and how to
   use DTLS with the currently standardized STUN Usages.  It also
   specifies modifications to the STUN URIs and TURN URIs and to the
   TURN resolution mechanism to facilitate the resolution of STUN URIs
   and TURN URIs into the IP address and port of STUN and TURN servers
   supporting DTLS as a transport protocol. ***It updates RFCs 5389 and 5928.***

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document.

Careful review.

> Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

I confirm.

> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified.

I confirm.

> 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).

There are no newly created IANA 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.

No new IANA registries are requested.

> (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.

None.
Back