IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration
draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-12-20
|
16 | (System) | 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 … 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.') |
2017-03-17
|
16 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8106, changed abstract to 'This document specifies IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) options (called "DNS RA … 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) |
2017-03-17
|
16 | (System) | RFC published |
2017-03-16
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-28
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-02-24
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2017-02-08
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-02-08
|
16 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-16.txt |
2017-02-08
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-08
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jaehoon Jeong" , "Soohong Park" , "Luc Beloeil" , "Syam Madanapalli" , 6man-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-02-08
|
16 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-27
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-01-27
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-01-27
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-01-27
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-01-27
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2017-01-27
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-01-27
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-01-27
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-01-27
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-01-27
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-01-27
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-01-27
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [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 … [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 :-) |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Good OPS-DIR review and nice to see that the new version already included all the changes. |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [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 … [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?) |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2017-01-19
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2017-01-18
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2017-01-18
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-01-18
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2017-01-18
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -5.2, "Domain Names of DNS Search List": Because the size of this field MUST … [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. |
2017-01-18
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-01-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-01-17
|
15 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-01-17
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-01-17
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-01-17
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-01-17
|
15 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-15.txt |
2017-01-17
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-17
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jaehoon Jeong" , "Soohong Park" , "Luc Beloeil" , "Syam Madanapalli" , 6man-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-01-17
|
15 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-17
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-01-17
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-01-16
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-01-16
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-01-16
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-01-16
|
14 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-01-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot has been issued |
2017-01-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-01-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-01-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-01-10
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tim Chown. |
2017-01-06
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-01-02
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-12-29
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-12-29
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | (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 … (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 |
2016-12-24
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2016-12-24
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2016-12-22
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2016-12-22
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2016-12-21
|
14 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. Sent review to list. |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | 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 … 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. |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-01-19 |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call was requested |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party |
2016-12-15
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-10-17
|
14 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed. Reviewer: Bob Halley. |
2016-10-13
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested |
2016-10-06
|
14 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Bob Halley |
2016-10-06
|
14 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Bob Halley |
2016-09-21
|
14 | Bob Hinden | 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 … 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 |
2016-09-21
|
14 | Bob Hinden | Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan |
2016-09-21
|
14 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-09-21
|
14 | Bob Hinden | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-09-21
|
14 | Bob Hinden | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-09-21
|
14 | Fernando Gont | Changed document writeup |
2016-08-22
|
14 | Ole Trøan | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2016-06-14
|
14 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-14.txt |
2016-05-28
|
13 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-13.txt |
2016-04-07
|
12 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-12.txt |
2016-03-14
|
11 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-11.txt |
2016-03-14
|
10 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-10.txt |
2016-03-11
|
09 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-09.txt |
2016-03-06
|
08 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-08.txt |
2016-03-06
|
07 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-07.txt |
2016-02-10
|
06 | Ole Trøan | Notification list changed to "Fernando Gont" <fgont@si6networks.com>, bob.hinden@gmail.com, otroan@employees.org from "Fernando Gont" <fgont@si6networks.com> |
2016-02-10
|
06 | Ole Trøan | Notification list changed to "Fernando Gont" <fgont@si6networks.com> |
2016-02-10
|
06 | Ole Trøan | Document shepherd changed to Fernando Gont |
2016-02-10
|
06 | Ole Trøan | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-10-20
|
06 | Ole Trøan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-10-10
|
06 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-06.txt |
2015-10-08
|
05 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-05.txt |
2015-10-08
|
04 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-04.txt |
2015-10-05
|
03 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-03.txt |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Ole Trøan | This document now replaces draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis instead of None |
2015-08-11
|
02 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-02.txt |
2015-08-10
|
01 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-01.txt |
2015-07-21
|
00 | Jaehoon Paul Jeong | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-00.txt |