PROTO write up for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 2012-05-01 Template version 2012-02-24 (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? The request is for Proposed Standard. The documents it is updating are all at the Proposed Standard level, and this document reflects experience with and clarifications of those. The type is indicated in the header. (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 DNSSECbis was published in RFC 4033, RFC 4034, and RFC 4035. Since the publication, some people filed errata against those documents, some additional developments added to DNSSECbis, and some implementation experience illustrated ambiguities or issues with the original texts. This draft collects those issues in a single place, updating the DNSSECbis specification and clarifying it where need be. Working Group Summary This draft is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group. Many of the clarifications came easily. The more contentious parts of the document have been discussed at length. For the most controversial of the clarifications, extensive discussion is included in appendices so that implementers and deployers may make informed decisions. Document Quality Most, if not all, of the document is reflected in the bulk of DNSSECbis validators and signers deployed on the Internet. The document is the result of several years of experience and discussion, collected with an eye to improving implementations. One of the most contentious parts resulted in multiple rounds of discussion and a special design team meeting. The document as it stands has been refined over a long period of time, and is of high quality. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Andrew Sullivan is the Document Shepherd, and Ralph Droms 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 shepherd performed multiple complete reviews, and is satisfied the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The WG has a requirement of at least five reviews prior to publication, and this document easily met that. In addition, some of the reviews were from long-standing critics of earlier versions. (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. No. (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. Section 5.6 represents a clear change to the protocol. This change is amply documented in practice, but it is nevertheless a change to the protocol. The Shepherd would have preferred something that did not actually change the protocol, but the document editors and a small number of reviewers said they preferred this formulation. The change happened during WGLC. Few people responded to a special request to comment on this issue, so it is not clear how strong the agreement is with this change in the protocol. It is indisputable, however, that some deployed instances work according to the new text, and interoperability is likely maximized by making the change in section 5.6. (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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. There is an IPR filing against RFC 5155, which this draft updates, but it does not seem to impinge on this draft. (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? The document has been through many iterations, a large amount of review, and several rounds of discussion about particular issues. There is one section, 5.9, that continues to be a sore point with one WG participant (the participant is also a notable contributor to an important implementation). Repeated requests during WGLC for expressions of support of that participant's position yielded no results. Section 5.9 was changed after WGLC because a participant (different than the one who objects to section 5.9 overall) said that it did not apply to stub resolvers. On further reflection, the authors reverted the change, because they thought it might be incorrect. Section 5.9 remains the area of most controversy. (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. There are none. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (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. It will not change the formal status of any, but it does update several. They are all listed. The way that documents are treated together (informally) as the DNSSEC core is also updated, and that is also called out in the document. (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). There are no actions for IANA. (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. None. (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.: N/A