Subject: [TLS] Proto write-up for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis-05

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:27:09 -0700

Below is the proto write-up for  draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis-05 (TLS
Extensions)

Cheers,

Joe

  (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? 

Joe Salowey, TLS WG co-chair, is the document shepherd for this
document, draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis-05,  and believes it is ready for
publication. 

  (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?  

The document has had adequate review.  The document shepherd does not
have any concerns about the breadth  of reviews. 

  (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? 

no

  (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. 

There is no IPR disclosure specifically for this draft, however RFC 4366
is listed as related material for  the Certicom IPR Disclosure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1154/.

  (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 as a good amount of consensus around this document within the
working group. 

  (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 the Internet-Drafts
Checklist 
        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 are split between normative and informative.  Downrefs
are informational. 

  (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 [RFC5226]. 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 document does not define any new registries or values, it does
however update the reference from  previous the previous RFC 4366 to
this one.  

  (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 Applicable. 

  (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 

This document provides specifications for existing TLS extensions. It is
a companion document for the TLS  1.2 specification [RFC5246]. The
extensions specified are server_name, max_fragment_length,
client_certificate_url, trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac, and
status_request.  This document obsoletes RFC  4366. 

     Working Group Summary 

This is an update of an existing document to fit the new partitioning of
material between the base spec and  the extensions spec. There were some
technical changes that were discussed extensively in the working  group.
The document represents the current consensus of the working group.

     Document Quality 

A number of extensions in the document have been implemented by several
parties.  Many of the implementers  participate in the TLS working group
and have contributed to the discussion of the document.