IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration
draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-16

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document specifies IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) options (called "DNS RA options") to allow IPv6 routers to advertise a list of DNS Recursive Server Addresses and a DNS Search List to IPv6 hosts.

This document, which obsoletes RFC 6106, defines a higher default value of the lifetime of the DNS RA options to reduce the likelihood of expiry of the options on links with a relatively high rate of packet loss.')

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8106, changed abstract to 'This document specifies IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) options (called "DNS RA options") to allow IPv6 routers to advertise a list of DNS Recursive Server Addresses and a DNS Search List to IPv6 hosts.', changed pages to 19, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-03-17, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis and RFC 6106)

[Ballot comment]
Good OPS-DIR review and nice to see that the new version already included all the changes.
From time to time, the AD live is easy :-)

[Ballot discuss]

I think this is the first "configure my DNS" thing to come
before the IESG since DPRIVE has gotten an output, so it seems
fair to ask now:

Why doesn't the DNS server information include a port now that
we have both 53 and 853 as options?  Without that, how is a
host supposed to know which to use? Did the WG consider
DPRIVE? If so, what was the conclusion? If not, what is the
right thing to do? (Add the port no? Define a new DHCPv6 option
for DNS/TLS? Something else?)

[Ballot comment]
-5.2, "Domain Names of DNS Search List": Because the size of this
                  field MUST be a multiple of 8 octets,..."

Is the MUST intentionally capitalized? If so, please consider moving it out of the condition clause.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-14.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

It appears that the RDNSS option and the DNSSL option defined in this document make use of existing codepoints in the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats subregistry of the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/

IANA Question --> Should the references for these two codepoints be updated to include [ RFC-to-be ] in the reference?

Otherwise, we understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, otroan@employees.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis@ietf.org, "Fernando Gont" , fgont@si6networks.com, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) options
  (called DNS RA options) to allow IPv6 routers to advertise a list of
  DNS recursive server addresses and a DNS Search List to IPv6 hosts.

  This document obsoletes RFC 6106 and allows a higher default value of
  the lifetime of the DNS RA options to avoid the frequent expiry of
  the options on links with a relatively high rate of packet loss.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Writeup for

Fernando Gont  21 September 2016

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

Proposed Standard.  The type is shown as:

    Intended status: Standards Track

in the title page header.


(2) 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 specifies IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) options
(called DNS RA options) to allow IPv6 routers to advertise a list of
DNS recursive server addresses and a DNS Search List to IPv6 hosts.

This document obsoletes RFC 6106 and allows a higher default value of
the lifetime of the DNS RA options to avoid the frequent expiry of
the options on links with a relatively high rate of packet loss.


Working Group Summary:

There is working support for this document.  It has been discussed on
the working group mailing list (6man). The working group preferred to
work on a bis version to replace RFC 6106, instead of producing an RFC
to update RFC 6106.


Document Quality:

The RA DNS options are supported by a number of operating systems,
including a number of Linux distributions, and Android.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Fernando Gont, Document Shepherd
Suresh Krishnan, Internet AD


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

I read the document and sent a detailed review to the authors, who
addressed my comments in subsequent revisions of the document. I think
the document is now clearer, and more easier to read.



(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

No.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

No issues here.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.


(9) 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?

I think there is a strong WG concensus to advance this document.  It is
essentially a revision of a previous wg item, and is meant to address
known issues with the obsoleted specification.


(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No ID nits were identified (besides two 'false positive' warnings).


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes


(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.




(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes one RFC: 6106. The change in the corresponding
status of such document is noted both in the title page header and the
abstract.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document employs two option types:
                Option Name                  Type
                Recursive DNS Server Option  25

                Option Name                  Type
                DNS Search List Option        31

These option types were assigned by the IANA at the time RFC6106 was
published. Therefore, this document contains no further IANA actions.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A