IETF conflict review for draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping
conflict-review-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping-03

The IESG has completed a review of draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping-03
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'A Summary of Various
Mechanisms Deployed at L-Root for the Identification of Anycast Nodes'
as an Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
dnsext, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.


The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
To Pete's point: DNSOP would be more appropriate anyway, since this document is talking about stuff happening in the real live Internet of today.

[Ballot comment]
I get what Pete is saying in his DISCUSS, but didn't we just say something like "related to IETF work done in the concluded DNSEXT working group" the last time we talked about this for a similar case?

I don't care, but if the difference between the proposed response and Pete's suggested response matters, I'd lean towards having a different response for a core Internet protocol that we're not actively working on now, and for some random protocol we've never heard of before.

Hi IESG Secretary:

The draft draft-jabley-dnsop-anycast-mapping-03
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742.

The following is some background for this draft, please forward it
to IESG along with this request ...

Its title is:
A Summary of Various Mechanisms Deployed at L-Root for the
Identification of Anycast Nodes

Its abstract says:
"Anycast is a deployment technique commonly employed for
authoritative-only servers in the Domain Name System (DNS). L-Root,
one of the thirteen root servers, is deployed in this fashion.

Various techniques have been used to map deployed anycast
infrastructure externally, i.e. without reference to inside knowledge
about where and how such infrastructure has been deployed.
Motivations for performing such measurement exercises include
operational troubleshooting and infrastructure risk assessment. In
the specific case of L-Root, the ability to measure and map anycast
infrastructure using the techniques mentioned in this document is
provided for reasons of operational transparency.

This document describes all facilities deployed at L-Root to
facilitate mapping of its infrastructure and serves as documentation
for L-Root as a measurable service."

It was reviewed for me by Andrew Sullivan, SM, Glen Wiley, Paul Hoffman,
and Jinmei Tatuya (the last few of these in response to a plea from
Joe Abley on the dnsop list).
The suggested changes have been made, I believe this draft is ready
for publication.

Thanks, Nevil (ISE)