[dnsext] RFC5395bis-02 advancement notice

Ralph,
as you instructed us here is a replacement document for RFC5395,
please advance this through the IESG as soon as possible.
Document:  draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt

Olafur & Andrew

-------

  (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?

DNSEXT co-chair Olafur Gudmundsson

   (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?

Yes adequate review,
No concerns about the quality of the review.

Note this document is a minor update from RFC5395
the changes are
	- working group email list has changed
	- minor inconsistency in two sections has been aligned.

   (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

   (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?

Strong,

   (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?

There are 3 warnings on the document,
two are wrong as they confuse regular expression part with reference,
one is warning about the boilerplate template being older that 
recommended, the editor and chairs agreed that to keeps differences from 
RFC5395 to minimum we would use the same template as the RFC used.

   (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].

No downward references.

   (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?

Checked no changes from RFC5395,
IANA will need to update references from 5395 to this document.

   (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?

yes I checked the regular expressions.

   (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.
      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?
      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?

Technical Summary:
The document obsoletes RFC5395 "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA 
Considerations" there is one major change: The mailing list for the 
working group has changed and the old address was embedded in the
expert review for new RR types.
There is also a small change that fixes inconsistency in who does what
during the expert review.

Working Group Summary
The working group held a short limited scope LC, with restrictions on
what could be changed. We accepted one change that fixed a known 
inconsistency in RFC5395, but rejected other suggested changes as being
out of scope.
We request accelerated processing by the IESG on this document.

Document Quality:
High quality

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext