[mif] Shepherd on draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-08
Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Fri, 20 April 2012 13:22 UTC
Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719F521F84DD for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.111, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEYOpFkL4299 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18E321F86E1 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so5858366yhk.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BLQV3j4Gj5UiBsISKOAvwsLabgT88vlgHJkftrMatqc=; b=FD0ya9wpMdE380cN4ciQ5NiT+PnQui+c0DmoKNGtgwKcywcaR1ghKT6wfD5eDf3GS9 DkO/iI0O1sDy+fuX36ktbX3hUIKi5yOAoAaJGmAWh/trGS2jfbWMSN+NWQfie0x2L+/r qh5IPVwlt9Yh3ULGNmiRAis4NgDe8pv3y7f82XltoAe9c9eGj3sSo3LhAepX1s3js7y7 NKpc6HvjBEyByrI5UswI8WuuclV6w/p11wdMtbYQsyFOADoItcxDPAMuVYlVZcaEMVIo g93BFF9BmlxKV7NHC1wPc06vO7TsbfjIZ4jbu6dtodWDBJFijRcsNTGV/B5mTqss9d3s yJYw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.125.168 with SMTP id z28mr5899111yhh.120.1334928114467; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.115.6 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:21:54 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMDzAnAvY4Ozdc6pNJZy7ApD3PDmo0YvQQo3vyV041SMVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: MIF Mailing List <mif@ietf.org>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3036388b10445304be1c2c72"
Subject: [mif] Shepherd on draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-08
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:22:00 -0000
Hello all Belo are document writeup for draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-08 Chair will submit if there is no any issue on this. thanks -co-chairs (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? ==> Proposed Standard, this document is a normaltive work and request IANA to assign two new option codes, in the title page header states "Standards Track" (2) 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 ==>A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple networks, some of which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces. A node commonly receives DNS server configuration information from all connected networks. Some of the DNS servers may have information about namespaces other servers do not have. When a multi-interfaced node needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose which of the servers to contact to. This document describes DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options that can be used to configure nodes with information required to perform informed DNS server selection decisions. 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? ==> There is no controversy about this document, but There were fears that this document is actually “promoting use of split-brain DNS”. After discussions the concern was tackled in Section 7 “Considerations for network administrators” with text: ”Private namespaces MUST be globally unique in order to keep DNS unambiguous and henceforth avoiding caching related issues and destination selection problems (see Section 2.3).” Another major area that caused lots of discussion was security implications caused by risks related to attacker redirecting some DNS queries to bad places. This is addressed in Section 4.4. “Limitations on use” and in Section 4.1, especially with help of DNSSEC. 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 two implementations of the protocol, one from Nokia, the other from NTT. Microsoft also has Name Resolution Policy Table implementation. There are thorough review, but not lead to important changes, there is no substntive issues. There are no MID and Media type definition which need expert review. Personnel Hui Deng is the Document Shepherd, Ralph Drom is the Responsible Area Director (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. ==》 The document has been discussed in the working group which has won the concenuss to move forward this document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? ==> The document has had extensive reviews within the IETF, not just MIF working group, but also DNSOP, DNSEXT and DHCWG. I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of reviews received. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. ==> The document has already got review from DNSEXT,DNSOP and DHCWG, others are not needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. ==> There is no concern or issue on this document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. ==> There are 3 authors in this document, Teemu has conformed Nokia's IPR claimed. Ted has conformed he is not aware of any IPR. J. Kato from NTT didn't reply anything on this. Need IESG's advice on how to handle this. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. ==> Yes, it has an IPR disclosure before it has been adopted as the working group document, but there isn't one filed in the datatracker. working group feel that the terms in that IPR filing is acceptable. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1103/ (9) 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? ==> WG as a whole understand and agree with it. (10) 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 publicly available.) ==> No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. ==> the document has passed the ID nits check, no error and warning. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. ==> This document meets the required criteria, and it doesn't define a new MIF, media type, and URL type. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? ==> Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? ==> No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. ==> No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. ==> No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). ==> Shepherd confirms that the document does request no new registries and pointers to existing registries (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. ==> the document doesn't request new registeries to existing registries (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. ==> Shepherd think the document is well written in the formal language
- [mif] Shepherd on draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selec… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] Shepherd on draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-s… Margaret Wasserman