Subject: [ietf-provreg] RFC4310bis document writeup

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:05:03 -0500

(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 Gudmndsson, agreed to take this on after the document entered 
IETF last call.

  (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?

I have reviewed the document starting with the version LC 03
and tried to assert the disposition of the discussion on the document
on the provreg and ietf mailing lists.  The document is now in version
07.

Note: I was active participant in discussion before becoming Document
Shepherd.

(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 has been extensively discussed and  had been reviewed by
a number of knowledgeable people. From EPP and DNSSEC perspectives
thus I have no concerns about the depth or quality of the reviews.

   (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.

Overall comments on the document:
This is a high quality document, with excellent editors who have done
a great job of corresponding with commenter and integrating comments
into the final version.

NO IPR.

  (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?

This document is not a product of a working group, the people that
   have participated in the discussions on the document seem to have
   come to an agreement that this is a good specification.
As this was not a product of a working group some people that actually
   work in this area did not know the discussion of updating RFC4310
   was taking place. These same people once they joined the discussion
   made significant contributions.
I have not been able to identify any "silent" group that may not
   grasp the content of this document.

   (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.)

None,

  (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?

There are few nits due to the ever changing boilerplates and tools not
being available when BP changes :-(.

I found one minor error in section 4.1. cites RFC3757 but should use the
document that obsoleted it, RFC4034.

   (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].

References split.
No down refs once the RFC3757 reference is updated to RFC4034.

   (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?

The IANA considerations section is clear.

  (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?

The XML code in the document passed my visual inspection and simple
XML syntax checker. I have confidence that the XML syntax is correct
but it would be useful if someone double checked.

Short history of Last call:

Version 03 posted
Last call issued:

Eduardo Duarte: Multiple DS and [in]active DS's
         Mailing list praticipants is not clear if this is
         needed and furthermore can not agree
         on what the meaning of "active" is.
	  --> not reflected in document

Bernie Hoensisen Version numbers needs to change
        -> accepted to reflect major changes in format

BH: Broken rem support should be dropped
        -> included in 04

Andrew Sullivan: Setting TTL
     -> not accepted not enough support

Multiple people: Multiple different MAXSIgLife statements
     -> move outside each DS and have this apply to whole set. 04
      (this forced the version number bump)

Version 04 posted

Version 05 added section on backwards compatibility and support of
both versions of the schema.

Version 06 number of clarity issues raised addressed no change in
content

Version 07 a nits pass

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:08:16 +0000

> Version 07 a nits pass

Olafur,

There's actually some substantial new text in §4 introduced between the 
-06 and the -07  versions to address my comments about <secdns:dsData> vs 
<secdns:keyData>.

In particular the newly documented requirement that EPP clients have to 
"remove all" and then re-insert DNSSEC data in order to migrate from one 
format to the other on a _per_domain_ basis may have significant design 
and implementation overhead that was not previously anticipated.

I'm still trying to grok the implications of this new text, and am 
consulting with our EPP implementors as to whether this is considered too 
arduous a requirement to be written in stone in the draft.

kind regards,

Ray

-- 
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
e: [email-masked], t: +44 1865 332211

---

From: James Gould <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:51:15 -0500

Ray,

The last sentence ³The server MUST return an EPP error result code of 2306
if the server receives a command using an unsupported interface³ of section
4 was added to address your feedback below.  The remainder of the updates in
section 4 was made to address Alex¹s Nit review feedback.

> Also, I note that §4 says that a server MUST support either <secDNS:dsData> or
> <secDNS:keyData>, but not both (unless in transition from one to the other).
> However I can find no guidance on what should happen if the client sends the
> wrong one.  The schema is clear that it's a choice, but that only affects
> individual messages, and doesn't reflect the server's capabilities.

> format to the other on a _per_domain_ basis may have significant design and
> implementation overhead that was not previously anticipated.

The use of the ³remove all² was added as one option to migrate from one
interface to a new interface.  This is defined as a MAY and not a MUST, so
it is not a requirement.   There are certainly other options, but we don¹t
want to get into a position where the server has both client specified DS
and server-generated DS for the same domain.  The use of ³remove all² along
with adding using the new interface will ensure that there is no mixing on a
per-domain.   The sentence ³The server MUST support the use of only one form
of interface except  during a transition period during which time the server
MAY support both² in section 4 of 06 was expanded to the second paragraph
in section 4 of 06 to clarify it based on Alex¹s feedback.

-- 

JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
[email-masked]
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or
Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus
may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written
consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received
this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a
copy.  Thank you.

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 04:08:16 -0500
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, EPP Provreg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RFC4310bis document writeup

Olafur, 

There's actually some substantial new text in §4 introduced between the -06
and the -07  versions to address my comments about <secdns:dsData> vs
<secdns:keyData>. 

In particular the newly documented requirement that EPP clients have to
"remove all" and then re-insert DNSSEC data in order to migrate from one
format to the other on a _per_domain_ basis may have significant design and
implementation overhead that was not previously anticipated.

kind regards, 

Ray

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:56:25 +0000

> The last sentence ?The server MUST return an EPP error result code 
> of 2306 if the server receives a command using an unsupported 
> interface? of section 4 was added to address your feedback below.

Thanks - that makes sense.

> The remainder of the updates in section 4 was made to address Alex?s
> Nit review feedback. 

Was Alex's feedback on-list?   I don't see a copy anywhere.

kind regards,

Ray

---

From: James Gould <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:15:36 -0500

Ray,

> Was Alex's feedback on-list?   I don't see a copy anywhere.

Yes, Alex¹s Nit review feedback was on the list and is at the URL below:

http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2010-02/msg00050.html

My reply to Alex¹s Nit review feedback was not on the list (my mistake).  I
just forwarded it to the list.

-- 

JG 

21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:56:25 -0500
To: James Gould <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, EPP Provreg <[email-masked]>, Olafur Gudmundsson
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] RFC4310bis document writeup

> The last sentence ³The server MUST return an EPP error result code
> interface³ of section 4 was added to address your feedback below.

> The remainder of the updates in section 4 was made to address Alex¹s
> Nit review feedback.

kind regards, 

Ray

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:33:50 -0500

On 04/03/2010 6:54 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Olafur,
>
> Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> [...]
>
> If I remember correctly I've asked authors about this before starting
> IETF LC and they said it was intentional.
>
>
>

IMHO I do not understand why they want to treat RFC3757 differently from 
RFC3658 as both are obsoleted by RFC403[345].

If the RFC3757 reference stands then I need to change my write-up to say 
there is a possible downref as Obsolete RFC is used and editors will 
have to provide downref justification.
If there is particular text in RFC3757 that the editors want to cite, 
an explicit informative reference can be added but the main citation is 
changed to RFC403[45].

	Olafur

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:30:44 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Olafur Gudmundsson
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:34 AM
> To: Alexey Melnikov
> Cc: [email-masked]; EPP Provreg
> Subject: [ietf-provreg] Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
> 
> >> (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?
> >>
> >> There are few nits due to the ever changing boilerplates and tools 
> >> not being available when BP changes :-(.
> >>
> >> I found one minor error in section 4.1. cites RFC3757 but 
> should use 
> >> the document that obsoleted it, RFC4034.
> >
> If the RFC3757 reference stands then I need to change my 
> write-up to say there is a possible downref as Obsolete RFC 
> is used and editors will have to provide downref justification.
> If there is particular text in RFC3757 that the editors want 
> to cite, an explicit informative reference can be added but 
> the main citation is changed to RFC403[45].

Changing the reference would be fine, bit I'm not sure which of the new
documents is an appropriate replacement.  None of them seem to describe
the function of the SEP bit in the same way that 3757 does.

Scott

---

From: James Gould <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:18:26 -0500

I concur with Scott.  The main goal of referencing RFC 3757 was for the
description of the SEP bit, where in RFC 4034 it references RFC 3757 for the
same reason.  

-- 

JG 

21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:30:44 -0500
> To: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>, Alexey Melnikov
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] Re: RFC4310bis document writeup
>

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:39:51 -0500

> description of the SEP bit, where in RFC 4034 it references RFC 3757 for the

Lets cite both and there is no issue.

	olafur