Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY) General Extension Payload for Open Mobile Alliance BCAST 1.0
RFC 5410

[Ballot comment]
Editorial nits (which could be fixed during RFC Editor processing):

- Since this document will obsolete RFC 4909, the abstract should
  probably contain most of the text from 4909's abstract, too.
- Reference [1]: document authors are missing and the title is wrong.
  Also, this should be an informative reference.
- Reference [5] should be updated to the latest version.
- Should use symbolic references (e.g. [RFC2119] instead of [6])
- The abstract should not contain references
- Acronyms in document title need to be expanded
- The bit numbers in Figure 1 and 3 are not correctly aligned

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "OMA BCAST Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads

Value OMA BCAST Types Comment Reference
------- ---------------------- --------------------------- ---------
TBD (3) LTKM Reporting [RFC-jerichow-msec-mikey-genext-oma-00]
TBD (4) Parental Control [RFC-jerichow-msec-mikey-genext-oma-00]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-jerichow-msec-mikey-genext-oma-00.txt
=============================================================


  (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?


      Document Shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com.
      The document is ready for publications and I have reviewed the
      document personally.


  (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?

      This document requests two additional subtypes for the OMA BCAST
  payload subtype namespace defined with RFC 4909.

      The work started in 2007, mails with IETF members have been
  exchanged for reviewing and getting advice how to proceed in
  updating (or obsoleting RFC 4909) since draft authors are not
  IETF experienced.
     
      The draft has been also reviewed from several delegates of the
  OMA BCAST working group.
     

  (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?
         
      There are no concerns with the document.


  (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 thisdocument
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

      There are no concerns. No IPR disclosure has been filed.
     
  (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?
         
      This document has not been developed within a working group.     


  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

      The document does not contain nits. There are no formal review
  activities to pass.


  (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 document has only normative references.


   
  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

      An IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the
  rest of the document.


  (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?

      The document does not contain formal languages.
 
 
  (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.


Document Announcement Write-Up for "MIKEY General Extension Payload for OMA BCAST 1.0"
(draft-jerichow-msec-mikey-genext-oma-00)


  Technical Summary

  This document extends the General Extension Payload for OMA BCAST
  usage defined in RFC 4909.  It adds necessary support for the
  newly specified management data as defined in the Open Mobile
  Alliance's (OMA) Broadcast (BCAST) group's Service and Content
  protection specification.
 

  Working Group Summary

  There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

  Document Quality

  This document requests from IANA to allocate two new subtypes from the
  OMA BCAST payload subtype name space in the IANA registry at
  http://www.iana.org/assignments/mikey-payloads.

  This document has been reviewed within the OMA BCAST group and by the
  PROTO Shepherd Hannes Tschofenig.
     
  Personnel

  Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.