Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:36:00 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com
Message-ID: <20120502143555.GJ81729@crankycanuck.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: [dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates
Precedence: list

--PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Ralph, 

This is a request for publication of
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 as a Proposed Standard.  The
standard write-up is attached.  Upon sending this message, I will
update the document status in the datatracker.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

--PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="proto_201205-01.txt"

PROTO write up for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18
2012-05-01
Template version 2012-02-24

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

    The request is for Proposed Standard.  The documents it is
    updating are all at the Proposed Standard level, and this document
    reflects experience with and clarifications of those.  The type is
    indicated in the header.

(2) 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

    DNSSECbis was published in RFC 4033, RFC 4034, and RFC 4035.
    Since the publication, some people filed errata against those
    documents, some additional developments added to DNSSECbis, and
    some implementation experience illustrated ambiguities or issues
    with the original texts.  This draft collects those issues in a
    single place, updating the DNSSECbis specification and clarifying
    it where need be.

Working Group Summary

    This draft is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
    Many of the clarifications came easily.  The more
    contentious parts of the document have been discussed at length.
    For the most controversial of the clarifications, extensive
    discussion is included in appendices so that implementers and
    deployers may make informed decisions.

Document Quality

    Most, if not all, of the document is reflected in the bulk of
    DNSSECbis validators and signers deployed on the Internet.  The
    document is the result of several years of experience and
    discussion, collected with an eye to improving implementations.
    One of the most contentious parts resulted in multiple rounds of
    discussion and a special design team meeting.  The document as it
    stands has been refined over a long period of time, and is of high
    quality.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

    Andrew Sullivan is the Document Shepherd, and Ralph Droms is the
    Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

    The shepherd performed multiple complete reviews, and is satisfied
    the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

    No.  The WG has a requirement of at least five reviews prior to
    publication, and this document easily met that.  In addition, some
    of the reviews were from long-standing critics of earlier versions.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

    No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

    Section 5.6 represents a clear change to the protocol.  This
    change is amply documented in practice, but it is nevertheless a
    change to the protocol.  The Shepherd would have preferred
    something that did not actually change the protocol, but the
    document editors and a small number of reviewers said they
    preferred this formulation.  The change happened during WGLC.  Few
    people responded to a special request to comment on this issue, so
    it is not clear how strong the agreement is with this change in
    the protocol.  It is indisputable, however, that some deployed
    instances work according to the new text, and interoperability is
    likely maximized by making the change in section 5.6.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

    Yes.
    
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    No.  There is an IPR filing against RFC 5155, which this draft
    updates, but it does not seem to impinge on this draft.

(9) 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 has been through many iterations, a large amount of
    review, and several rounds of discussion about particular issues.

    There is one section, 5.9, that continues to be a sore point with
    one WG participant (the participant is also a notable contributor
    to an important implementation).  Repeated requests during WGLC
    for expressions of support of that participant's position yielded
    no results.

    Section 5.9 was changed after WGLC because a participant
    (different than the one who objects to section 5.9 overall) said
    that it did not apply to stub resolvers.  On further reflection,
    the authors reverted the change, because they thought it might be
    incorrect.  

    Section 5.9 remains the area of most controversy.

(10) 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 publicly available.) 

    No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

    There are none.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

    Yes

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

    No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure. 

    No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

    It will not change the formal status of any, but it does update
    several.  They are all listed.  The way that documents are treated
    together (informally) as the DNSSEC core is also updated, and that
    is also called out in the document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

    There are no actions for IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

    None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.:

    N/A

--PuGuTyElPB9bOcsM--