[Ballot comment]
The abstract and introduction may be interpreted as DTLS providing security mechanisms to the DCCP protocol, rather to the carried data payloads. It would be good if one clarified this by improving the wording in these two sections.

[Ballot comment]
At the beginning of section 3:
  >  Multiple DTLS records MAY be sent in one DCCP-Data packet, as long
  > as the resulting packet is within the Path Maximum Transfer Unit
  > (PMTU) currently in force for normal data packets, if the Don't
  > Fragment (DF) bit is being used, or within the current DCCP maximum
  > packet size if the DF bit is not being used (see section 3.5 for
  > more information on PMTU Discovery).
  >
  This needs to be split into two cases: IPv4 (in which case the DF bit
  exists and may or may not be set) and IPv6 (where DF doesn't exist).

Document Shepherd Writeup

As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding,
this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time.  This version is dated February 1, 2007.

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Gorry Fairhurst (gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk) - DCCP WG Chair

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

Yes. Eric Rescorla assisted the original scope and content of this
work within the DCCP WG with a detailed review of issues relating
to use of DCCP by DTLS.

The WGLC revealed some issues with interactions between DCCP and
DTLS PMTUD that were addressed and a new rev. passed through a further
shortened WGLC and received further feedback.  The people who made
these extra comments said that they were addressed in the revision
<draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-05.txt>.

The document was externally reviewed by Pasi Eronen during both
WGLCs, and inputs in the early stage were received from Eric Rescorla.

A copy of this write-up was sent to the list.

There are no known implementations of this specification at this time.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

This document relates to security (i.e. DTLS).

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

One point of controversy was the recommendations for the use of
Service Codes, which is part of a wider discussion within the DCCP WG.
The text presented for the second WGLC reflected WG consensus on this.
(This debate related to correct use of DCCP, and not to correct
end-to-end operation of the DTLS protocol across DCCP.)

  (1.e)  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 is strong support that this work is needed, and consensus that
the work is complete.

  (1.f)  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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)
No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
Yes.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  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
        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references have been verified.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations have been verified.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

Not appropriate.

  (1.k)  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?

Technical Summary

This document specifies the use of Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) over the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP).  DTLS
provides communications privacy for datagram protocols and allows
client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed
to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery.  DCCP is a
transport protocol that provides a congestion-controlled unreliable
datagram service.

Working Group Summary

This document is a product of the DCCP working group. The document is
expected to apply to the use of current and future versions of DTLS
over the DCCP transport service.

Document Quality

The DCCP WG has reached consensus that this document is ready for
publication, and recommends publication on the IETF Standards Track.