Subject: [dnsext] Advancement statement for dnsext-dnssec-gost-06

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:32:08 -0500

Ralph,
Here is a document from DNSEXT.
Please start an IETF LC as soon as feasible.

Document:  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06.txt
Statement:

   (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 DNSEXT co-chair.
This version has addressed all issues raised in the working group last
call and the 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?
Yes it has.
No concerns about quality of review.

    (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?

This document should be reviewed by the security area.

    (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.

There was some push back as to if this document should be published 
on standards
track or informational.  This document is making registrations in 
registries that
require Standards action, thus only Standards track documents can perform these
registrations. The working group is comfortable with Standards track.

    (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?

This is always hard to judge, the core members of the working group seem to
understand the issues and discussing this document brought in new 
participants.
My understanding is that the average WG members sees no problem or issue in
this becoming an RFC.

    (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
           discontent?  If so, please summarize 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
           http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the document
           does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
           the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Yes, I have checked the document, no nits.

    (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 references are split.
Normative references 4357 is informational but that RFC is in
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
thus IMHO this is OK.

    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
           Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
           document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
           Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
           the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document IANA actions are clearly identified.

    (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

    (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.

This document defines the use of new digital signature algorithm, the 
specifications
of this algorithm was originally published in Russian but an English 
translation
is in the RFC editors queue.
The document describes how to publish a public key in a DNSKEY record, how
to convert the public key into a construct used by crypto libraries, and how
to generate digital signature and publish it in a RRSIG.

The documents further describes how to publish an authorizing DS record for a
DNSKEY using a corresponding digest algorithms.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
              For example, was there controversy about particular points
              or were there decisions where the consensus was
              particularly rough?

The consensus for this document is strong.

           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?

This document has been reported by few DNS implementors to be clear 
enough to be
implementable. There have been changes in the wire format between the 
different
versions, using random testing codes for IANA requested values.
This document is similar in many respects to RFC5702 and RFC 4509
as the DNS inter operability issues are identical.
The only difference is the underlying technologies, RSA/SHA2
vs GOST R 34.10-2001/GOST R 34.11-94.

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
              experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
              in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Document Shepherd is: Olafur Gudmundsson
AD: Ralph Droms

         Olafur and Andrew