Shepherd writeup

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)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Standards track as indicated in document.

(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 specification outlines current recommendations for use of
  Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide confidentiality of email
  traffic between a mail user agent (MUA) and a mail submission or mail
  access server.

Working Group Summary

Discussion in the WG went through several iterations and the document went through
major restructure wrt the initial submission.

Document Quality

The document accurately reflects consensus and closely matches much of current practice
for how mail services are operated. The WGLC went through with no oposition and clear
indication of consensus from the community.  There have been no expert reviews of the 
document and an ABNF expert review along with the secdir review would be useful.


  Shepherd: Leif Johansson (WG chair)
  AD: Alexei Melnikov

(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 have reviewed the document and based on my review and the review of
the WG, it 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 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.

There is some ABNF in the document which should get specialist review if possible.

(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.

There is an issue with the updated registration of port 465 in section 7.3
which calls for a one-time exception to RFC 6335 and should get special
attention by IESG and by IANA. 

(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. There are no issues.

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

None that we are aware of.

(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 is very solid

(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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

- There are a couple of nits on the abstract lacking references. This can be 
easily fixed post IETF LC
- Also idnits carps about the BCP78 boilerplate but that is probably just and
oversight by the authors (eg using an old template). Can also be fixed post IETF LC

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

None required afaik but please see the earlier notes about ABNF and IANA review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(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?


(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. 


(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.

Yes: 1939, 2595, 3464, 3501, 5068, 6186, 6409 although they are not 
listed in the abstract the introduction the text calls out the references
as the proposed update to each protocol is discussed in the text. 
Clarifying the update in the abstract and introduction can easily be 
fixed post IETF LC.

(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 proposed document amounts to a set of IANA registry updates, one of
which is somewhat unusual (port 465) in that the proposed update reflects
current practice which is (in fact) in conflict with IANA registration policy.
The IANA considerations section is fully aligned with the rest of the document
but still requires (esp in the case of port 465) careful consideration. In the
opinion of the shepherd the document reflects WG consensus and common

(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 registries are created

(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.

Bill Fenners parser results in no errors.