Dear ADs,
this is a request to publish
Title : Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance
Author(s): D. Conrad, S. Woolf
Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-08.txt
Pages : 13
Date : 2007-2-16
as an Informational RFC. Please find below the proto questionnaire.
-Peter
(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?
Peter Koch is the document shepherd for this document, has
read the latest version (-08) of the draft and, yes, I believe
it is ready for consideration by the IESG.
(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 received much attention before and after the
WGLC (see Acknowledgements section). There are no concerns regarding
the breadth or depth of the 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 lists current practice and operational requirements
and has seen contributions from both vendors and operators.
There are no concerns of lack of review.
(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?
There are no such issues. Noone raised any IPR issues.
(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?
After the WGLC for -04 there were several reviews posted by
Pekka Savola, Bruce Campbell, Brett Carr, Daniel Senie,
Olaf Kolkman, and Andrew Sullivan.
There was some discussion whether or not the documentation
of the DNS RR based identification convention should appear
together with the requirements. The WG consensus was to
keep both parts in one document since the disadvantages of the
old method were considered a good start and motivation for
setting the requirements for a standardized scheme.
Subsequent versions of the draft incorporated WGLC and post WGLC
comments as well as nits review issues.
There is a good WG consensus behind this document.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
I am not aware of any such threat or indication.
(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/).
This document has passed the online ID nits tool and has also been
checked in multiple cycles of proofreading.
(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?
This document has split references and the document shepherd believes
the assignments are appropriate. There are no downward references.
There is one I-D listed as an Informational reference, pointing
to draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-02.txt, which is currently waiting for
this document to be processed.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?
This document does not request any IANA action. As a coincidence,
one of the editors is a member of IANA staff, so there is strong
belief IANA issues received due attention.
(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
This document explains a current convention for identifying
a particular name server out of a set of servers in an anycast
cloud or behind a load balancer. It explains key disadvantages
of this practice and discusses a set of requirements for an
improved mechanism.
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?
This document evolved from a purely documenting informational
draft into a requirements document after the WG determined that
a single dedicated DNS based information query had operational
disadvantages. There was some discussion about splitting the
documentation part and the requirements part, but the WG decided
to keep it as is.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?
The DNS RR based convention as documented in this draft has been
supported by multiple vendors of DNS server software.
The dnsext WG has produced "DNS Name Server Identifier Option (NSID)",
<draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-02.txt>, which took into account the
requirements laid out in this draft.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Peter Koch
Responsible AD: David Kessens
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
