Subject: [dnsext] [[email-masked]: Request for publication: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22]

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:11:17 -0400

Dear colleagues,

I have requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname.  I
will update the status of the document to reflect our request.

Thanks to the editors of the document for their long work.

Best,

Andrew (document shepherd)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

Subject: Request for publication: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22
From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:08:16 -0400

Dear Ralph,

This is a request for publication of the draft
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22.txt on the Standards Track.
This document is an update to RFC 2672 and if published will render
that RFC obsolete.  This draft does not advance DNAME on the standards
track under the procedures of RFC 2026; its intended status is as
Proposed Standard.  At a later time, when the current situation with
respect to the standards track is clearer, we will undertake
advancement.

As required by RFC 4858, below is the completed current template for
the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

--- begin PROTO write-up. ---

This is the completed  Document Shepherd Write-Up as required by RFC
4858 for the draft draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22.  This
template was completed 2011-05-04.

The template 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? 

Andrew Sullivan is the Document Shepherd.  He has reviewed the
document and believes it is ready.

  (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?  

The document has been part of the DNSEXT work for a number of years.
It is on version 22; the -00 was published in 2006.

It has been through several lengthy discussions on the WG mailing
list.  Recent calls for any additional comments did not result in any
new work.

  (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?   

There was at least one WG participant who maintained privately that he
could not support the document publicly, because he believes it
introduces a subtle incompatibility; but that he was not willing to
object publicly.  The shepherd sought elaboration of this critique,
but (1) it wasn't forthcoming and (2) nobody else made 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.  Note that the complaint about NOT RECOMMENDED & 2119 isn't quite true:
the phrase is only in the document in order to update a different
document that already uses that phrase.

  (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]. 

The references are so split, and everything is correct.

  (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.  There is a request to update an existing registry.  It is 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? 

N/A

  (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 

        The DNS DNAME RRTYPE redirects subtrees of the domain name
        space.  This memo updates the original specification found in
        RFC 2672.  It also aligns RFC 3363 and RFC 4294 with the
        revision.

     Working Group Summary 

        The DNS Extensions Working Group has spent a considerable
        amount of time on this document.  It is the product of
        extended revie