[dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08.txt
Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Thu, 16 February 2012 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADB321F866A; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:08:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1329404890; bh=NZ81xoCO2Zj9Y8rHnTQeXwIe3j9qeTcyeB1R4wIxegQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=Ei2pEm3IjEfb3hmlpjayOS9b93BiM/x9qIXM+SUbiryWumQijND56RRdhOjdfCYlf N3H/ipd2Ya0b85YEXtXGF1PfLkYdKe9ExOXJpkpMJx9P4qnbVCFar6jcQfftsBkVQR rw6hlplhX2+7XOcf0O+jpsZRqjnUbgAOtA/zKaWQ=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5BA21F8648; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:08:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 dUfze0DQoRVe; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:08:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E7221F855F; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:08:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1GF81Jw042422; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:08:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ogud@ogud.com)
Message-ID: <4F3D1BD0.3060007@ogud.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:08:00 -0500
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.20.30.4
Cc: "<dnsext@ietf.org>" <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: [dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Ralph, please start IETF LC for this document, requested status is: INTERNET STANDARD if that is not possible Proposed Standard is OK. thanks Olafur Changes are expected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008. (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? Olafur Gudmundsson ogud at ogud.com is the document shepherd I have personally reviewed this and prior versions, 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? This document has had extensive review and comments over its lifetime as well as during the lifetime of its precursor RFC2671. There are no concerns with the 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 IPR disclosure, this is a real important document. The precursor document was written in pre-RFC2119 style that made it sometimes hard to nail down exact intent of text, this document attempts to adress the issues with RFC2671 and various deployment issues we have run into over the years. All Normative refernecs are "Full Standard", being obsolted or "Proposed Standard". (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? Quite solid there are some people that want stronger languague in certain places and others that want weaker. The WG understands the document and is overall happy with it. (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? Yes (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 the references are split. If this document is published as Internet Standard one normative reference is a downref RFC3225 that is only included here due to the fact that a registry requested by RFC2671 was not created by IANA but backfilled much later and this document fills out the current values of the registry. (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? Yes IANA considerations section is present and actionable by IANA. (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? Does not apply (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. ---- The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not allow requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders. This document describes backward compatible mechanisms for allowing the protocol to grow. This document updates the EDNS0 specification (RFC 2671) based on feedback from deployment experience in several implementations. It also closes the IANA registry for extended labels created as part of RFC 2671 and obsoletes RFC 2673 ("Binary Labels in the Domain Name System") which depends on the existence of extended labels. The main contribution of RFC2671 was to allow larger DNS messages over UDP, beween cooperating parties, this is crucial for DNSSEC and other modern DNS uses. ---- 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? ----- Working group is solidly behind this document. ---- 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 many implemenations of this specification, the working group wish is that this be published as Internet Standard. This document is the cummulation of fair ammount of work and experience. During the WG process most of the changes in the document were stylistic and presentation ones rather than technical. _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
- [dnsext] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsext-r… Olafur Gudmundsson