Subject: [dnsop] Request to Publish "DNSSEC Operational Practices" (draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-07.txt)

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:58:50 +0100

Dear ADs,

on behalf of the DNSOP WG I would like to request publication of

	draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-07.txt

as an Informational RFC.

Find below the PROTO questionnaire. I will act as PROTO shepherd.

Thanks,
  Peter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
   Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
   to forward to the IESG for publication?

    Yes.

b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
   and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
   depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    The draft has been reviewed by many members of the community, including
    operators and crypto experts. It was last called in the WG twice. The
    earlier WGLC lead to a long list of open issues which were dealt with in
    detail on the WG mailing list.
    The chairs do not have any concerns about either depth or breadth of the
    review.

c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
   particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
   complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

    The chairs believe that the review has been extensive and the authors have
    been very responsive to comments and suggestions. The fact that there is
    currently not much real operational experience is reflected by requesting
    publication as Informational rather than as BCP.

d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
   you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?

    The chairs do not see any such issues.

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 is very strong. The discussion on the mailing list had
    many independent contributors and there were no contentious issues.

f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?

    No.

g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
   ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

    Yes.

h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
   Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

    All normative references are RFCs. Reference [10] is now RFC 4310
    and reference [13] points into the IETF meeting proceedings. Both will
    be adjusted in cooperation with the RFC Editor.
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html