[dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-07

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Dear Ralph,

This message is a request to publish
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-07 on the Standards Track.
The draft represents the rough consensus of the DNS Extensions Working
Group.

As required by RFC 4858, below is the completed current template for
the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

DRAFT FILENAME: 
    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-07
TITLE: 
    Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm
    IANA Registry


  (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? 

Andrew Sullivan.  Yes, I believe it is ready.

  (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 WG has been talking about this draft for some time.  I believe it
has had adequate review, but it is a strange document.  It is
basically a process document, and I therefore suspect that the only
time it will get the sort of attention it needs on that front is
during IETF-wide review.  It should also be reviewed by IANA.
  
  (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 draft uses a novel procedural trick to put something into a
registry that usually isn't in a registry, so I think this will
require careful review by IETF process wonks.

  (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. 

There are those who have argued that what the document is doing --
putting "implementation levels" into a registry -- is a bad idea.
This appears to have been a minority position.

  (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?   

There have been many WG participants who have been mute on this
document, which might suggest indifference.  The documents on which it
is based, however, all had reasonably strong WG consensus, so there is
no concern that there is technical disagreement here.

  (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? 

The abstract does not mention the RFCs that the draft updates, and it
should do.  We presume there will be updates as a result of IETF last
call, and this oversight can be fixed then.  There is an obsolete
normative reference, but that is intentional because of the way the
registry is being respecified.

  (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 references are correct.

  (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.  The document replaces a registry; that is all it does.  In some
ways, the entire document is an IANA consideration.

  (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? 

N/A

  (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 

        This memo completely replaces the Domain Name System Security
        (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers registry.  The new registry
        includes a field to indicate requirements for compliance to
        this memo.  At the same time, the registry is adjusted to
        include some reservations of values that have been observed
        as being in use on the Internet.

     Working Group Summary 
        
        The Working Group believes that the DNSSEC Algorithm Numbers
        registry needs maintenance.  This memo is intended to do that.
        The memo includes a novel mechanism for specifying whether an
        algorithm is "required".  The registry includes a field that
        indicates whether an algorithm is required, recommended, or
        forbidden by this memo, and the memo includes a constraint
        that it cannot be updated, only obsoleted.  Not everyone
        thinks the additional field is a good idea.

     Document Quality 

        This is a process-only document intended to present a clean
        and usable registry for IANA; there is no protocol to
        implement.


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]
Shinkuro, Inc.