[DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational+FYI) for <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-05.txt>
Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Fri, 01 April 2011 09:32 UTC
Return-Path: <peter@denic.de>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0223A67B7; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 02:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gb0uSEXqYZMv; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 02:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (gw-office.denic.de [81.91.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDF03A67A6; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 02:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1Q5ak3-0007xC-6p; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:34:07 +0200
Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1Q5ak3-0007eY-3I; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:34:07 +0200
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:34:07 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20110401093407.GJ26225@x27.adm.denic.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: Peter Koch <peter@denic.de>
Cc: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational+FYI) for <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-05.txt>
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:32:29 -0000
Ron, this is the second of a series of three requests for publication of AS112/RFC1918 related documents of the DNSOP WG. Please note that we ask for publication as Informational in the FYI series for this draft. Regards, Peter ============================================================================= This is a PROTO write up and Request for Publication as INFORMATIONAL and FYI for "I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!", <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-05.txt>. ============================================================================= (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? Peter Koch is the document shepherd and believes that 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? The document has been reviewed by a number of WG members who have expressed explicit support for the document. This document is for end user consumption and has been exposed to that target audience occasionally with positive feedback regarding its content and comprehensibility. There are no concerns as to the depth or breadth of reviews, but we are looking forward to the GenART review in particular. (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. (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? Only a few WG members have participated in the discussions, but the consensus of those members has been overwhelmingly positive. (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 nits checker warns about a number of IP addresses and domain names. However, these are meant literally and not as an example and thus are rightfully mentioned in the document. The checker also reports an outdated reference to an Internet Draft (draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones). The updated version of this document has been posted without any changes and a publication request will be sent after this one. (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. There are references to two other documents that are being submitted to the IESG at the same time (draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops and draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones). (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 exists for explanatory purposes only and should remain in the document. The document itself does not make any requests of IANA. 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 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. Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses which are not globally unique. Examples are the addresses designated in RFC1918 for private use within individual sites. Since queries sent to AS112 servers are usually not intentional, the replies received back from those servers are typically unexpected. Unexpected inbound traffic can trigger alarms on intrusion detection systems and firewalls, and operators of such systems often mistakenly believe that they are being attacked. This document provides background information and technical advice to those firewall operators. 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? The working group was supportive of this and the associated AS112 operations document. Nothing particularly controversial came up. 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? This document is for end user consumption. =============================================================================