[DNSOP] Publication Request (BCP) for <draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt>
Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Fri, 01 April 2011 10:43 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 3FFB53A67D3; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, 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 jbm01mTreycZ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (gw-office.denic.de [81.91.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AC63A67E1; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1Q5brC-0008M8-NA; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:45:34 +0200
Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1Q5brC-00009B-Ij; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:45:34 +0200
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:45:34 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20110401104534.GK26225@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 (BCP) for <draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.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 10:43:58 -0000
Ron, this is the third and final publication request in a series of DNSOP deliverables. We would like to request the publication of "Locally-served DNS Zones" <draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt> as a "Best Current Practice" (BCP) RFC. Regards, Peter ============================================================================= This is a PROTO write up and Request for Publication as BEST CURRENT PRACTICE for "Locally-served DNS Zones" <draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.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. There are no concerns as to the depth or breadth of reviews. (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? Many members of the DNS operational community have supported this approach, including operators of the infrastructure (AS112, IN-ADDR.ARPA) that is currently affected by the query leakage to be addressed by 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.) 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 one IP addresses appearing literally. Since it is not meant as an example and is rightfully mentioned in the document, this warning can be ignored. (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-help-help and draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops). (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 document defines an IANA registry for "locally served zones". It specifies the registration policy and the seed values. (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. Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are a number of DNS zones all iterative resolvers and recursive nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise. RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC 1918 address space and other well known zones with similar characteristics. 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 strong but not unanimous consensus. Discussion arose around how exactly to seed the IANA registry that defines the list of zones to locally serve. 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? There are name server implementations that already use the feature described in this document. =============================================================================