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?

   Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the

(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

   A number of protocols exist for establishing encrypted channels
   between SMTP Mail Transfer Agents, including STARTTLS, DANE TLSA, and
   MTA-STS.  These protocols can fail due to misconfiguration or active
   attack, leading to undelivered messages or delivery over unencrypted
   or unauthenticated channels.  This document describes a reporting
   mechanism and format by which sending systems can share statistics
   and specific information about potential failures with recipient
   domains.  Recipient domains can then use this information to both
   detect potential attackers and diagnose unintentional

Working Group Summary

   The WG consensus for adoption this draft was strong and the core of
   the draft remained stable from the first version. Most discussions in the WG 
   were concerned with clarifications and with supporting of additional
   features like automated parsing of MIME headers. The MIME encoding 
   of TLS report was discussed a lot with WG members changing their opinions.
   The draft has passed through two WGLCs and I think that overall it has 
   received enough scrutiny from reviewers.

Document Quality

   To my knowledge there are no implementations of this draft to date.
   However all the authors expressed a desire to implement it 
   and some implementations are under way.


   Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

   Valery Smyslov (shepherd)
   Alexey Melnikov (AD)

(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 found it ready.

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

   No. The document was a subject of several detailed reviews 
   from implementers and other WG members.

(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.

   No but an expert ABNF review would be useful.

(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.


(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.

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

  No IPR disclosure has been filed 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?   

   The WG consensus is 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 two lines in the draft that are too long (in policy samples), 
  this can be handled by RFC Editor. There is also one usage of domain name
  that doesn't follow RFC 2606 recommendations ("").

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

  None are applicable as far as I can see but an ABNF review 
  would be useful.

(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.


(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).

   A new registry is created - "STARTTLS Validation Result Types".
   The registry is created using the expert review policy 
   and is consistent with the document and clearly defined.
   Two new items are registered in the "Permanent Message Header Field" registry.
   Two new media types are registered. In addition a new parameter is registered 
   under "multipart/report" top level media type. The requirements
   for the registries are fulfilled.

(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.

   The "STARTTLS Validation Result Types" registry.
   Pick experts that have a solid history and knowledge in TLS, DANE and email 
   deployment. One possible name is Viktor Dukhovni <>.

(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 ABNF checker shows no errors on the ABNF definitions included in the draft.