Subject: [dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08.txt

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:08:00 -0500

Ralph,
please start IETF LC for this document, requested status is:
INTERNET STANDARD

if that is not possible Proposed Standard is OK.

	thanks
	Olafur

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008.

   (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?

	Olafur Gudmundsson ogud at ogud.com is the document shepherd
	I have personally reviewed this and prior versions, this
	document is ready 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?

	This document has had extensive review and comments over its
	lifetime as well as during the lifetime of its precursor
	RFC2671.
	There are no concerns with the reviews.
	
   (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?

	No

   (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.

	No IPR disclosure, this is a real important document.
	The precursor document was written in pre-RFC2119 style that
	made it sometimes hard to nail down exact intent of text, this
	document attempts to adress the issues with RFC2671 and
	various deployment issues we have run into over the years.
	All Normative refernecs are "Full Standard", being obsolted or
	"Proposed Standard".

   (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?

	Quite solid there are some people that want stronger languague
	in certain places and others that want weaker. The WG understands
	the document and is overall happy with it.

   (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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
         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?

	Yes

   (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].

	Yes the references are split.
	If this document is published as Internet Standard one
	normative reference is a downref RFC3225 that is only included
	here due to the fact that a registry requested by RFC2671 was
	not created by IANA but backfilled much later and this
	document fills out the current values of the registry.

   (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 IANA considerations section is present and actionable by
	IANA.

   (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?

	Does not apply

   (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
         Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
         and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
         an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
         or introduction.
----
    The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed
    fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not
    allow requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders.  This
    document describes backward compatible mechanisms for allowing the
    protocol to grow.

    This document updates the EDNS0 specification (RFC 2671) based on
    feedback from deployment experience in several implementations.  It
    also closes the IANA registry for extended labels created as part of
    RFC 2671 and obsoletes RFC 2673 ("Binary Labels in the Domain Name
    System") which depends on the existence of extended labels.

    The main contribution of RFC2671 was to allow larger DNS messages
    over UDP, beween cooperating parties, this is crucial for DNSSEC
    and other modern DNS uses.
----

      Working Group Summary
         Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
         example, was there controversy about particular points or
         were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
         rough?

-----
       Working group is solidly behind this document.
----

      Document Quality
         Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
         significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
         implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
         merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
         e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
         conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
         there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
         what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
         review, on what date was the request posted?

There are many implemenations of this specification, the working group
wish is that this be published as Internet Standard. This document is the
cummulation of fair ammount of work and experience. During the WG process
most of the changes in the document were stylistic and presentation
ones rather than technical.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext