Establishing Local DNS Authority in Validated Split-Horizon Environments
draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority-08

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents (26/04/2024)


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

[Med] The document succeeded to reach a broad agreement. The initial design was
      challenged but less concerns were raised during the second WGLC. See more
      below.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

[Med] The document went two WGLCs with the design radically changed between
      versions till -03 (1st WGLC) and the design in the document since -04.

      -03 used NS query to retrieve the set of nameservers that are authorized to
      serve a domain. A local resolver can get treatment if it can prove ownership
      of one of these NS names. This design is not flexible as it requires the set
      of authorized nameservers to be exactly the same as the set of advertised name
      servers for resolution. The use of NS was controversial and lengthy discussions
      happened on the list and during meeting.

      -04 went with a new design that leverages many existing pieces, mainly:

        * Rely upon a TXT record for validation a la draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques

        * Reuse the ZONEMD hash

        * Use local DNSSEC

        * Convey the list of claimed domains in a DHCP/PvD.

        * The claimed local domains within a zone are confidential, but the names

        * Identify explicitly the parent zone in the claim

        * Use "salt" for confidentiality

      See the Shepherd’s summary of the issues after the WGLC at:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/2dk7h5OkcllfpajHWTVyHfXvCV0/. These
      comments were adequately addressed by the authors (algo agility, etc.).

      Some concerns about the deployability of the -03 solution were raised against
      the early design (till -03). However, no such issues were raised during the
      last WGLC. Also, the OPSDIR review didn't identify such concern. Note that the
      Shepherd raised specifically the deployability comment with the reviewer
      (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/GCjCuNaC2ENFOEaDSxpEaAbn1tw/).

      There was a suggestion to share the claims using DNS itself instead of DHCP/PvD
      but that suggestion was not explored further.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

[Med] No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

[Med] No. Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mpC0eTnJuQCU30uqFkpdSiR5Ud4/

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

[Med] Yes, DHC, DNSOP, and 6man.

      At least DHCWG was reached out by Shepherd for review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

[Med] N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

[Med] N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

[Med] N/A


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

[Med] The Shepherd reviewed several versions of the spec and the authors kindly addressed
      the comments.

      The document is well-written and is ready to be handed to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

[Med] Early reviews were already performed for this spec (secdir, opsdir, dnsdir, intdir).

      In addition, the Shepherd requested DHC WG review
      (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/).
      The authors adequately addressed the DHC WG review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

[Med] This document requests publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

      That fact is indicated on the header page.

      The intended status is justified given that the document specifies new objects
      (PvD, etc.) with a set of normative behavior to ensure interoperability.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

[Med] Yes. The shepherd run the IPR poll and all authors replied to that poll:

      * Benjamin Schwartz: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/SJDQT6bei8tHJF_HIpFvkM9F1Pw/

      * Kevin Smith: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/lGRvQoGbwBfwh7JJ4wcbrX3kCZ0/

      * Dan Wing: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7kxJ91WwiwKxi7wPv18HBsLVkfA/

      * Tiru Reddy: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/1gAK8VoIokwCgRx6A58xGAP4qtw/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

[Med] Yes, as evidenced by the reply to the IPR poll for example.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

[Med] No.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

[Med] No.

      Note that previous versions of the document till -08 used to cite "IANA-SUDN"
      as normative, while it is better to reference RFC6761. This is now fixed in -09.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

[Med] No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

[Med] No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

[Med] No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

[Med] No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

[Med] This document requests IANA to update existing registries:

        * Protocol Name Space Values

        * Additional Information PvD Keys

        * Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names

      Pointers to locate these registries and required information are provided.

      The requested assignments are consistently used in the document.

      Early versions of the document does not register the structure of the
      splitDnsClaims, while this is appropriate for future extensions of the object.
      This is now fixed in the latest version (-09); see also [18].


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[Med] The document requests IANA to create a new registry that requires Designated
      Expert Review. The authors updated the draft to include clear DE guidance per
      [18]. 

      The authors are good candidates to service as DEs for this registry.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[18]: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues/48

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents (26/04/2024)


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

[Med] The document succeeded to reach a broad agreement. The initial design was
      challenged but less concerns were raised during the second WGLC. See more
      below.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

[Med] The document went two WGLCs with the design radically changed between
      versions till -03 (1st WGLC) and the design in the document since -04.

      -03 uses NS query to retrieve the set of nameservers that are authorized to
      serve a domain. A local resolver can get treatment if it can prove ownership
      of one of these NS names. This design is not flexible as it requires the set
      of authorized nameservers to be exactly the same as the set of advertised name
      servers for resolution. The use of NS was controversial and lengthy discussions
      happened on the list and during meeting.

      -04 went with a new design that leverages many existing pieces, mainly:

        * Rely upon a TXT record for validation a la draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques
        * Reuse the ZONEMD hash
        * Use local DNSSEC
        * Convey the list of claimed domains in a DHCP/PvD.
        * The claimed local domains within a zone are confidential, but the names
        * Identify explicitly the parent zone in the claim
        * Use "salt" for confidentiality

      See the Shepherd’s summary of the issues after the WGLC at:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/2dk7h5OkcllfpajHWTVyHfXvCV0/. These
      comments were adequately addressed by the authors (algo agility, etc.).

      Some concerns about the deployability of the -03 solution were raised against
      the early design (till -03). However, no such issues were raised during the
      last WGLC. Also, the OPSDIR review didn't identify such concern. Note that the
      Shepherd raised specifically the deployability comment with the reviewer
      (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/GCjCuNaC2ENFOEaDSxpEaAbn1tw/).

      There was a suggestion to share the claims using DNS itself instead of DHCP/PvD
      but that suggestion was not explored further.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

[Med] No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

[Med] No. Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mpC0eTnJuQCU30uqFkpdSiR5Ud4/

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

[Med] Yes, DHC, DNSOP, and 6man.

      At least DHCWG was reached out by Shepherd for review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

[Med] N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

[Med] N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

[Med] N/A


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

[Med] The Shepherd reviewed several versions of the spec and the authors kindly addressed
      the comments.

      The document is well-written and is ready to be handed to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

[Med] Early reviews were already performed for this spec (secdir, opsdir, dnsdir, intdir).

      In addition, the Shepherd requested DHC WG review
      (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/).
      The authors adequately addressed the DHC WG review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

[Med] This document requests publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

      That fact is indicated on the header page.

      The intended status is justified given that the document specifies new objects
      (PvD, etc.) with a set of normative behavior to ensure interoperability.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

[Med] Yes. The shepherd run the IPR poll and all authors replied to that poll:

      * Benjamin Schwartz: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/SJDQT6bei8tHJF_HIpFvkM9F1Pw/
      * Kevin Smith: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/lGRvQoGbwBfwh7JJ4wcbrX3kCZ0/
      * Dan Wing: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7kxJ91WwiwKxi7wPv18HBsLVkfA/
      * Tiru Reddy: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/1gAK8VoIokwCgRx6A58xGAP4qtw/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

[Med] Yes, as evidenced by the reply to the IPR poll for example.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

[Med] No.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

[Med] No.

      Note that previous versions of the document till -08 used to cite "IANA-SUDN"
      as normative, while it is better to reference RFC6761. This is now fixed in -09.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

[Med] No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

[Med] No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

[Med] No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

[Med] No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

[Med] This document requests IANA to update existing registries:
        * Protocol Name Space Values
        * Additional Information PvD Keys
        * Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names

      Pointers to locate these registries and required information are provided.

      The requested assignments are consistently used in the document.

      Early versions of the document does not register the structure of the
      splitDnsClaims, while this is appropriate for future extensions of the object.
      This is now fixed in the latest version (-09); see also [18].


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[Med] The document requests IANA to create a new registry that requires Designated
      Expert Review. The authors updated the draft to include clear DE guidance per
      [18]. 

      The authors are good candidates to service as DEs for this registry.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[18]: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues/48

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents


* review the mailing list related threads (issues/resolutions, etc.): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/2dk7h5OkcllfpajHWTVyHfXvCV0/.




* writeup

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

[Med] No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

[Med] No. Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mpC0eTnJuQCU30uqFkpdSiR5Ud4/

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

[Med] Yes, DHC, DNSOP, and 6man.
At least DHCWG was reached out by Shepherd for review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

[Med] N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

[Med] N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

[Med] N/A


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

[Med] The document is almost ready to be handed to the AD. There are some WGLC comments
to be addressed.

The Sheperd reviewed thgis
https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues/created_by/boucadair

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

[Med] Early reviews were already performed for this spec (secdir, opsdir, dnsdir, intdir).
In addition, the Shepherd requested DHC WG review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/).
The authors adequately addressed the DHC WG review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

[Med] This document requests publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. That
is indicated on the header page. The intended status is justified
given that the document specifies new objects (PvD, etc.) with a set of normative
behavior to ensure interoperability.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

[Med] Yes. The shepherd run the IPR poll and all authors replied to that poll:

* Benjamin Schwartz: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/SJDQT6bei8tHJF_HIpFvkM9F1Pw/
* Kevin Smith: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/lGRvQoGbwBfwh7JJ4wcbrX3kCZ0/
* Dan Wing: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7kxJ91WwiwKxi7wPv18HBsLVkfA/
* Tiru Reddy: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/1gAK8VoIokwCgRx6A58xGAP4qtw/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

[Med] Yes, as evidenced by the reply to the IPR poll for example.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC9162' is defined on line 947, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8499
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9499)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

[Med] "IANA-SUDN" is currently listed as normative, while I think it is better to reference RFC6761.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

[Med] No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

[Med] No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

[Med] No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

[Med] No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

[Med] This document requests IANA to update existing registries:
* Protocol Name Space Values
* Additional Information PvD Keys
* Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names

Pointers to locate these registries and required information are provided.

The requested assignment are consistenly used in the document.

However, the document does not register the structure of the splitDnsClaims, while
this is appropriate for future extensions of the object.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[Med] No such registry is defined in the document. However, see the answer to 20. 


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Log:
* IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/zXvV705nxWAmHa3iuKT5x5RlnU8/
* Implementations check: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mpC0eTnJuQCU30uqFkpdSiR5Ud4/
* review the mailing list related threads (issues/resolutions, etc.): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/2dk7h5OkcllfpajHWTVyHfXvCV0/.
* review request sent to DHC WG: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/
* review the doc: see https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues/created_by/boucadair

to do:

* writeup

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Log:
* IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/zXvV705nxWAmHa3iuKT5x5RlnU8/
* Implementations check: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mpC0eTnJuQCU30uqFkpdSiR5Ud4/
* review the mailing list related threads (issues/resolutions, etc.): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/2dk7h5OkcllfpajHWTVyHfXvCV0/.
* review request sent to DHC WG: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/egOS8LSSCT9QBCyJgfo82exr3W0/
* review the doc: see https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues/created_by/boucadair

to do:

* writeup

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Log:
* IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/zXvV705nxWAmHa3iuKT5x5RlnU8/
* Implementations check: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mpC0eTnJuQCU30uqFkpdSiR5Ud4/
* review the mailing list related threads (issues/resolutions, etc.): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/2dk7h5OkcllfpajHWTVyHfXvCV0/. A revision is needed. Also, Chairs need to request formal review from DHC WG.
* review the doc: see https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues/created_by/boucadair

to do:

* writeup

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

With apologies to the ADD working group,the chairs had announced that this document was going to be put in WGLC and MED had agreed to be the Shepherd, but the actual action in datatracker did not get kicked off.

This is correcting that oversight and the document is now properly in WGLC for 3 weeks ending on August 3rd 2023. 

Here's the prior notice of the intent to put it in WLGC:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/n3Xzu-tdihRi4cwoaCHoJZyP9s0/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

Log:
* IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/zXvV705nxWAmHa3iuKT5x5RlnU8/
* Implementations check: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mpC0eTnJuQCU30uqFkpdSiR5Ud4/

to do:
* review the mailing list related threads (issues/resolutions, etc.)
* review the doc
* writeup

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/