Shepherd writeup

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-07

(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?

    Informational, as indicated in the title page header. The reasoning for “informational” is two-fold:

   1) The draft does not (or was not supposed to) define new or modify existing protocols.
        It talks about how one can assemble existing building blocks to make the right things
        happen, not how to build new blocks. So it seemed like the most appropriate status
        was either “informational” or “BCP"
   2) Two of those “existing protocols”, namely ZRTP [RFC6189] and SDP Security Descriptions [RFC4568]
        are not particularly well regarded among some of our security experts, who indicated objections to
        using them in a new standards track document or BCP.

(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:

    Opportunistic Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (OSRTP) is an
    implementation of the Opportunistic Security mechanism, as defined
    in RFC 7435, applied to Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP).  OSRTP
    allows encrypted media to be used in environments where support
    for encryption is not known in advance, and not required.  OSRTP
    does not require SDP extensions or features and is fully backwards
    compatible with existing implementations using encrypted and
    authenticated media and implementations that do not encrypt or
    authenticate media packets.  OSRTP is not specific to any key
    management technique for SRTP.  OSRTP is a transitional approach
    useful for migrating existing deployments of real-time
    communications to a fully encrypted and authenticated state.

Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus in the WG around this document.

Document Quality:

  Section 6 of the document (to be removed before its publication as
  an RFC) discusses the implementation status of the techniques
  described in the document.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Gonzalo Camarillo is the Document Shepherd. Ben Campbell is the
    responsible 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.

    The document shepherd reviewed revision 05 of this document, which
    was ready for publication.

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


(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.


(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.

(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


(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

    The whole WG understands the document and agree with
    it. Nevertheless, the number of active participants in the
    SIPBRANDY WG is limited at this point.

(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 thorough.

     The document contains no relevant nits.     

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
     criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
     No formal reviews are needed.

(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


(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).

     The IANA Considerations Section is complete and consistent.

(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

     No new registries are defined.

(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.

     No such checks were needed.