[DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational) for <draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-04.txt>

[Peter Koch <[e-mail]>]

Ron,

this is a PROTO write up and Request for Publication as INFORMATIONAL
for "Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNS",
<draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-04.txt>.

Best regards,
   Peter

=============================================================================
PROTO write up for <draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-04.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 shepherd for this document, has read the
latest version <draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-04.txt>
and yes, I believe it 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 is the result of the work of a large group of people,
many of which have contributed ideas and reviewed the draft.

(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?

There are no such concerns.

(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.
There was no contention. The long delay between WGLC and this submission
is purely the fault of this document shepherd.

(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?

The document is the result of a design team work. Members of the team
represent a variety of operators, vendors and other interested parties.
The group consisted of 10-15 individuals.
Most people inside the WG who were interested in the topic have
contributed to the effort.  The draft was last called in the WG
with some additional support.


(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 </id-info/checklist.html> 
      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, the draft meets requirements. It passed idnits 2.12.05.

(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 split as required, the draft is aiming at Informational,
so there are no downrefs.

(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?

This is a requirements document.  No action or attention is required
of IANA for this document. 

(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 
      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. 

Management of name servers for the Domain Name System (DNS) has
traditionally been done using vendor-specific configuration and control
methods.  Although some service monitoring platforms can test the
functionality of the DNS itself there is not an interoperable way to
manage (control, configure, and monitor) the internal aspects of a name
server itself.

This document discusses the requirements of a management system, protocol
or framework for name servers and can be used as a shopping list of
needed features for such a system.


   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 document represents the consensus of the Working Group.

   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? 

The document provides a set of requirements rather than a design of a protocol.
However, followup work has already been started within the IETF to develop a
framework based on this document.
=============================================================================