Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-12:
[This is based on the template version dated 24 February 2012.]
(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?
This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header,
and that is appropriate - it is defining required behavior for CLUE.
(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:
This document defines how to use the WebRTC data channel mechanism in
order to realize a data channel, referred to as a CLUE data channel,
for transporting CLUE protocol messages between two CLUE entities.
The document defines how to describe the SCTP over DTLS association used
to realize the CLUE data channel using the Session Description
Protocol (SDP), and defines usage of the SDP-based "SCTP over DTLS" data
channel negotiation mechanism for establishing a CLUE data channel.
Details and procedures associated with the CLUE protocol, and the SDP
Offer/Answer procedures for negotiating usage of a CLUE data channel,
are outside the scope of this document.
Working Group Summary
There was some difficulty in deciding what mechanism to use to establish
the CLUE data channel: whether to the in-band mechanism of
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol, or the SDP offer/answer mechanism of
draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg. Since offer/answer is heavily used
in CLUE, the O/A mechanism was preferred, but the work on defining it
lagged, and it isn't overtly supported in RTCWEB. But the work on that
draft has advanced well so that the group is now willing to accept that
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
One vendor has prototyped and demonstrated CLUE support in
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?
Beyond the prototype, no specific plans have yet been announced.
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?
None that stand out.
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?
None apply to this document
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
(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 shepherd has been an active reviewer of this document throughout
its development, and reviewed it again in its entirety while preparing
this writeup. In the view of this shepherd the document is ready for
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns. The document has been well reviewed.
(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
No special reviews are 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
(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 has been filed against 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?
There is strong WG consensus for this document by all those who have
actively participated in the group.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The only nits are two outdated references.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(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 normative references to several other CLUE drafts.
The intent is that these will all progress together.
There are normative references to drafts defining the rtcweb data
channel, and to the draft defining the SCTP over DTLS transport it
depends upon. The intent is for this draft to wait for those to advance.
There is a normative reference to drafts defining negotiation of SCTP
in SDP, and of data channels in SDP. Again the intent is for this draft
to wait for those to advance.
All of these things are expected to progress soon.
(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.
There are no downrefs.
(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 doesn't change the status of any other document.
(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 IANA considerations section is in good order. The one item
requiring registration is handled properly.
(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.
(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.