Protocol Action: 'Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-07.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 20 January 2015 15:52 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-07.txt)
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150120155207.5561.14509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:52:07 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/aKv0o21PryLGUivj6x1YXDeHoSY>
Cc: dnsop mailing list <dnsop@ietf.org>, dnsop chair <dnsop-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS'
(draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization-07.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Joel Jaeggli and Benoit Claise.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization/

Technical Summary

This document specifies how a child zone in DNS can publish records
indicating to the parent zone to process and act on these records. It
does this by introducing a new Resource Record Type named CSYNC

Working Group Summary

Initially the WG attempting to combine this work with the
draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance document. However, it
became clearer they were two different approaches, and the request was
dropped.

Document Quality

Currently there are no implementations for the handling of this
RRType. It was implied that some of the public domain software
packages will deploy this, but have not so far.

We believe the reviews have been thorough and substantial.

Personnel

Tim Wicinski is the Document Shepherd Joel Jaggeli is the Area
Director

The document Shepherd feels that this draft underwent a strong
technical and editorial review, and there is no concern about the
breath of reviews.

RFC Editor Note

One final editorial nit from Barry Leiba

section 6 iana considerations
...
Change the words to say "Standards Action", which is the term in 5226 that apllies. Saying RFC Required, even with the explanation, invites both IANA and other readers to misunderstand.

So you could say, instead, 'Assignment of new flag values are subject to "Standards Action" specifications [RFC5226], publishing the definition of the new value in a standards track RFC.'
...

Protocol Action: 'Child To Parent Synchronization… The IESG