Shepherd writeup
rfc8261-09

As required by RFC4858, 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?

PS

(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:
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is a transport protocol originally defined to run on top of the network protocols IPv4 or IPv6. This document specifies how SCTP can be used on top of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. Using encapsulation method described in this document, SCTP is agnostic about the protocols being used below DTLS, explicit IP addresses can not be used in the SCTP control chunks.

Working Group Summary:
This document is being prepared at the request of the RTCweb/webRTC activity.

Document Quality:
The document is thought ready to publish. As far as the authors know, this this is implemented in the Chrome, Firefox and Opera browser. PMTUD is not yet implemented.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
G Fairhurst (TSVWG Co-Chair)

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Spencer Dawkins (TSV 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 was reviewed against related documents and is thought ready to proceed. Security expertise was requested (Ekr) to help identify requirements for using DTLS and  to recommend the appropriate version of DTLS. 

(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.

It should be reviewed by security experts.

(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. 

(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?

M. Tuexen- Confirmed.
R. Stewart - Confirmed.
R. Jesup  - Confirmed.
S. Loreto - Confirmed.

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

None known.

(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 received support from 5 people within TSVWG plus the WG chair. The work replayed to RTCweb requirements. Feedback was received from RTCweb implementors during document development. A WGLC ended 28th February 2014, with some reviews that resulted in an updated document. Since then discussion has focussed on which version of DTLS to mandate. This conclude in November 2014.

(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.

None

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

None

(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?

OK

(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).
This document requires no actions from IANA

(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.

None

(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