Shepherd writeup
rfc7384-12

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?

An Informational RFC is being requested because this document specifies requirements
and considerations for requirements on time synchronization protocols. As such, it is
intended to guide future work. 

(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:

As time and frequency distribution protocols are becoming increasingly common and
widely deployed, concern about their exposure to various security threats is increasing.
This document defines a set of security requirements for time protocols, focusing on the
Precision Time Protocol (PTP) and the Network Time Protocol (NTP). This document also
discusses the security impacts of time protocol practices, the performance implications of
external security practices on time protocols and the dependencies between other
security services and time synchronization.

Working Group Summary:

This document has been around for a long time. It has been socialized outside the IETF
community and is currently being used as the basis of the security work ongoing in the
IEEE 1588 community. 

Document Quality:

This is a requirements document and as such doesn’t have implementations. The
document has received several reviews in various communities. 

Personnel:

Karen O’Donoghue is the document shepherd.
Brian Haberman 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 IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed all versions of this document and believes that it is
ready for publication. 

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

The document shepherd has no concerns regarding the reviews performed on the
document. 

(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.

Given that the document specifies security requirements, comments from the security
community during the broader IETF review process would be helpful. However,
comments have been solicited over time. 

(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.

The document shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this document. 

(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?

As a requirements document, IPR disclosures are not an issue. 

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed with respect to 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 solid WG consensus on this document. 

(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.)

There have been no threats of appeal or extreme discontent with this document. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

There are no ID nits in this document. 

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

There are no formal review criteria for this document. 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative?

All references are identified as 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 no normative references in an unclear state. 

(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 downward normative 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 have any impact on 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 doesn’t specify any IANA registries. 

(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 doesn’t specify any IANA 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.

There are no formal language sections of this document.  
Back