[TLS] Proto write-up for TLS exporter

["Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey at cisco.com>]

    (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? 

I, Joe Salowey, co-chair of the TLS working group, am the Document
shepherd for this document.  I have reviewed the document and I believe
it is ready for forwarding 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 been reviewed by key working group members that
understand TLS.  The document has also been reviewed by members of the
cryptographic community that are experts in key derivation.  


    (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 document deals with cryptography and has had cryptographic review.  


    (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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
          this issue. 

The document shepherd has no concerns with the document.  There is an
IPR disclosure that lists this document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1004/.  The contents of this disclosure
where originally posted to the list on June 30, 2008
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg02770.html).   The
IETF IPR disclosure reference was recently posted to the TLS list as
well.  There has been little discussion on this in the working group.
The general sentiment is that the IPR is applicable to cases where ECC
certificates are used. 



    (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 consensus behind this document is strong with decent support and
participation from the working group. 

    (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.) 

No. 

    (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? 

There are a few nits with respect to references in the document.  There
is also one instance of "MUST not" that should be replaced by "MUST
NOT".  


    (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]. 

The Document has split references.  In the current version some of the
references are out of date or missing.  A informative reference to RFC
5216 should be added in place of 2716.  The reference to RFC 5281 should
be informative.  The reference to the DTLS-SRTP draft should be
rectified in the text.  


    (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 suggest a 
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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? 

Yes

    (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? 

Yes

    (1.k) 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 

A number of protocols wish to leverage Transport Layer Security (TLS) to
perform key establishment but then use some of the keying material for
their own purposes.  This document describes a general mechanism for
allowing that.


          Working Group Summary 

There was significant consensus in the working group supporting this
document.  The largest controversy was over the name.      

          Document Quality 

The approach is planned for use in several protocols. The document has
been reviewed by cryptographers who are experts in the area of key
derivation.