Shepherd writeup
rfc8106-16

Writeup for <draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis>

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
Back