[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