[dnsop] Publication Request: draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-07.txt

[Peter Koch <[e-mail]>]

Dear ADs,

this is a request to publish

	draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-07.txt

as an Informational RFC. While this, strictly speaking, is an individual
submission, it was reviewed by the dnsop WG (see (d) below).

Find below the PROTO questionnaire.

Thanks,
  Peter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

   $me (Peter Koch) will act as the proto shepherd, have reviewed this
   and previous versions and believe it is ready for publication.

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 draft has passed a dnsop WGLC that led to some changes. In addition,
   the chairs requested review by the security area directorate that was
   provided by Catherine Meadows.

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. The draft was reviewed for the
   security area directorate (see above) and the last call was
   brought to the attention of the v6ops WG.

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?
   
   This document still is an individual submission that was reviewed by
   the dnsop WG at the special request of the IAB v6 ad hoc group.
   It has been treated like a WG document except that it was never
   formally adopted.

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 describes a service aimed at a specific community (those
   using the 6to4 mechanism). Experience with and demand for this service
   might be limited within the WG, but the WG understands and supports the
   DNS related parts.

f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?

   No.

g) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document satisfies
   all ID nits?

   Yes.

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?

   The references are properly split. All normative references are to
   RFCs. One expired and supposedly dead I-D appears as an Informative
   Reference (mainly to give credit), a relevant excerpt is provided as
   a quote.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Summary

   This document describes the service mechanism for requesting and
   maintaining a delegation for the DNS reverse mapping of 6to4 IPv6 address
   space within the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain via an automated interface.

Working Group Summary

   The dnsop WG reviewed this document on request of the IAB.

Document Quality

   The service is operational as described and is provided by the NRO.
   The 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa zone contains several hundred delegations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html