[XCON] Publication Request: draft-ietf-xcon-bfcp-connection-03

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

The XCON Working Group chairs have requested publication of the document 
draft-ietf-xcon-bfcp-connection-03. The Document Shepherd Write-Up 
follows. (For details regarding Document Shepherd procedures, please see 
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08).

/a

--------

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Adam Roach <[e-mail]> has personally reviewed this version
of the  document, and beleives it is ready to be forwarded to the
IESG for publication.


   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has gone through a working group last call, which ended
last November. It has been completely reveiewed by at least one key
contributor to the XCON working group. Additionally, the RAI-area
security advisor has provided specific and detailed comments on
improvments to the document, which have been incorporated. Key
points of the document were discussed in person at the 66th IETF
meeting. The working group chairs brought specific points of consensus
from this meeting to the mailing list for validation.

Compared to other working group documents, the overall discussion
activity surrounding this document has been quite light. This is
not surprising in light of its relatively small size, and the
uncontroversial nature of its contents. Consequently, the shepherd
has no reservations progressing the document, despite the relatively
low activity surrounding it.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

The only components of this document that lie outside the domain
of expertise for the XCON working group relate to security, and
the shepherd is satisfied that the security review of this document
is adequate.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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 shepherd is comfortable with the contents of the document. The working
group has not expressed strong opinions either for or against publication
of the document. Nevertheless, the mechanism described in this document
is a useful specification that completes RFC 4582, and allows its use
outside the context of conventional XCON conferences.

   (1.e)  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 document represents the position of select key contributors to the
working group, with limited interest from others.


   (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

There has been no discontent -- extreme or otherwise -- expressed
regarding this document.


   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The shepherd has manually verified compliance with the ID nits
list. No additional formal reviews are necessary.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All normatively cited RFCs are Proposed Standard, except for
the following two:

  2119 - BCP
  2898 - Informational

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
          describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
          the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
          needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document requires no actions of IANA, and the IANA Considerations
section accurately reflects this fact.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There are no formal declarations in this document.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary

    This document specifies how a Binary Floor Control
    Protocol (BFCP) client establishes a connection to a
    BFCP floor control server outside the context of an
    offer/answer exchange.  Client and server authentication
    are based on Transport Layer Security (TLS).

  Working Group Summary

     This document is a product of the XCON working group.
     Its contents have been uncontroversial in working group
     discussions.

  Document Quality

     Eric Rescorla reviewed the document from a security
     perspective. Based on his feedback, the client
     authentication mechanism was changed from one based
     loosely on HTTP digest authentication to the use of
     TLS with pre-shared keys.

     Adam Roach has reviewed the document for quality.

  Personnel

     Adam Roach is the Document Shepherd for this document.
     Cullen Jennings is the responsible Area Director.

  RFC Editor Note

    In Section 3, paragraph 5, please correct as follows:

    OLD:
      This will guarantee optimal routing.

    NEW:
      This will result in the selection of a preferred
      destination address.

    --

    In Section 5.1, paragraph 4, please correct as follows:

    OLD:
     If more than one identity of a given type is present
     in the certificate (e.g., more than one dNSName name,
     a match in any one of the set is considered acceptable).

    NEW:
     If more than one identity of a given type is present
     in the certificate (e.g., more than one dNSName name),
     a match in any one of the set is considered acceptable.

    --

    Normative References: Please replace RFC 2459 with RFC 3280.


_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon