Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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?

It's an Informational RFC. This is appropriate because it's just mainly
adding new named elliptic curves to a repository used by TLS.

(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 memo specifies three new named elliptic curves, generated by
the ECC Brainpool, for use in TLS. These curves have already been
assigned OIDs but also require a name in a TLS repository to be
used with TLS.

Working Group Summary:

This memo is not a working group document but it was discussed on the
TLS mailing list. There was some support but not enough to adopt it
as a working group item.

Document Quality:

The elliptic curves have been used in other protocols than TLS. The
test vectors in the memo have been verified by the document shepherd.


Dan Harkins is the document shepherd. 
The responsible area director is Sean Turner.

(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

The document shepherd read the document and reviewed it for completeness
and clarity. The document shepherd wrote a short program that verified
its test vectors.

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

No, none at all.

(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 are no further expert reviews needed.

(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.

The document shepherd has no concerns or issues with the document. 
This document simply asks for IANA to update a registry.

(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?

The draft merely discusses allocation of code points for existing
elliptic curves so no IPR disclosure is necessary for this memo.

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

No, there are no IPR disclosures that reference 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?

As stated above, this is not the product of a working group. As such, it
is not the result of working group consensus. There was a concurrence
of a few individuals on the list to adopt this as a working group item
but it did not meet consensus. There is understanding and agreement,
though, that there are no issues associated with advancing this document
and allocating the requested code points.

(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.)

The document shepherd is unaware of any threat of an appeal or any
discontent with the document.

(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 thorough.

There are no ID nits.

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

There is no formal review required.

(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?

There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement. All normative references are clear.

(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.

This document will update RFC 4992, which is discussed in the

(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 table that indicates the allocations requested, and associated text,
is not in the IANA considerations section. The responsible Area Director
has already commented on this and there is agreement on moving the 
table and associated text into the IANA consideration section.

(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 IANA registries added.

(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.

The test vectors have been verified.