Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor and Successor
draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-01

---- following is a DRAFT of message to be sent AFTER approval ---

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    dnsext mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>, 
    dnsext chair <dnsext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor 
         and Successor' to Experimental RFC 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor and Successor '
   <draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-02.txt> as an Experimental RFC

This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Mark Townsley and Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-02.txt

Technical Summary
 
   The first draft, draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing
   describes how to construct DNSSEC NSEC resource records
   that cover a smaller range of names than called for by RFC4034.  By
   generating and signing these records on demand, authoritative name
   servers can effectively stop the disclosure of zone contents
   otherwise made possible by walking the chain of NSEC records in a
   signed zone.
 
   The other draft, draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s describes two 
   methods for deriving the canonically-ordered predecessor and 
   successor of a DNS name.  These methods may be used for dynamic   
   NSEC resource record synthesis, enabling security-aware name 
   servers to provide authenticated denial of existence without 
   disclosing other owner names in a DNSSEC-secured zone.

Working Group Summary

   There was consensus in the DNSEXT WG to publisg the online-signing
   draft as Proposed Standards.  During IETF Last Call, some people
   suggested that this draft would be better published as an
   Experimental RFC.  However, the WG had discussed the publication
   status of both of these drafts explicitly, and the number people who 
   raised this issue in IETF LC was not sufficient to question the 
   earlier WG consensus.
 
Protocol Quality
 
   These documents were reviewed for the IESG by Margaret Wasserman.