Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is 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?

draft-ietf-perc-srtp-ekt-diet is targeted at the Standards track, 
and this writeĀ­up is for Proposed Standard. This is reflected on the title page 
and in the data tracker.

(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

This document defines extensions to DTLS-SRTP and SRTP for securely
Transmitting SRTP master keys and related information in the 
Media path for decentralized multimedia conferences 

Working Group Summary
The current version of the specification is a streamlined 
version of draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-ekt to cater to PERC WG 
use cases. The AVTCore version of the this draft was 
extensively reviewed prior to producing this version of 
the draft in PERC WG. The version adopted by the PERC WG 
has been discussed several times and reviewed both internally 
and by security area personnel (Russ Housley, Sean Turner)

This document in general has gotten strong support from
the working group as the work that needs to be done.

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?

An early draft of EKT was implemented in many of 
Cisco telepresence products and has been widely shipped and used.
libsrtp, a widely used SRTP library in commercial and open source 
SIP  and Webrtc products, has a branch with the implementation 
for EKT. A branch of Firefox has the relevant integration for 
performing DTLS-SRTP and EKTKey setup procedures as part 
of NSS library.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

The document shepherd is Suhas Nandakumar; 
the responsible Area Director is Ben Campbell.

(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.

This document has been reviewed and discussed several times with in 
the WG. It has been reviewed by personnel from Security Area. 
Special thanks to Russ Housley and Sean Turner for their detailed 

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

I do not have any concerns about the working group reviews to date. 

(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.

Another round of Security review and TLS WG personnel is welcomed.

(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.

No concerns that I am aware of.

(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
There was an IPR filed for the original author version of this draft
back in 2006  Cisco has filed the 
same IPR  on the current version here:

(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?   

It's 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.) 

No threats of appeal or otherwise.

(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 were couple of warnings in the draft-ietf-perc-srtp-ekt-diet-08.txt 
 and authors have been notified of the same

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

This document does not present the need for these 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?

Not applicable.

(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 requests for downward references.

(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 does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).

This document requests an update couple of existing registries.
- RTP parameters registry needs to be updated to include new tables
for "EKT Message Types" and "EKT Ciphers"

- Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry needs to be updated 
to defined "supported_ekt_ciphers" as new extension

-  TLS HandshakeType Registry needs to be updated to add "ekt_key" as 
a new handshake type.

The IANA requests is appropriately defined in the document.

(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.

This document does not request 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.

ABNF content in the document was validated with