Establishing Local DNS Authority in Validated Split-Horizon Environments
draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority-14

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Jiankang Yao for his ARTART review.

I support John's DISCUSS.

I am concerned about the collection of ABSTAINs here.  However, it would take me too long to synthesize an opinion of my own, so I'm moving to No Objection from here.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

(20/06/2024)

Here is my summary of the IESG reviews:

* Abstain from Paul: Paul acked that the authors made an effort to take
  into account some of his concerns. Paul still believes that there are challenges with
  the deployability of the solution. Paul explained also that some of his concerns
  are rooted to the ADD charter in general (policy out of scope). 

* Comment from Erik to clarify the use of DHCP Reconfigure.

  Resolution: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/pull/62/files

* Comments from John (https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues?q=scudder)

  Resolution: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/pull/68/files

* Comment from Roman about minimum slat length/entropy

  Resolution: Clarification provided on the list, but no change made so far.

* Comment from Murray about base64url normative ref

  Resolution: Added a normative reference to RFC4648

(13/06/2024)

Here is my Shepherd summary of the IETF LC:

* IANA review:

  - The comments received from the PvD DE were addressed in -11.

  - the Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names registry DE was OK

  - The Datatracker captures this: Expert Reviews OK

* Directorate reviews:

  (1) SECDIR raised a comment about the lack of a security cons related
      to SALT. This was fixed by the authors in -12. No follow-up though
      from the reviewer.

  (2) DNSDIR OK

  (3) ARTART raised a comment about changing some terminology.
      I agree with the authors reply (that same term was already
      used in other RFCs)

  (4) GENART review: The reviewer suggested some readability enhancements
      to Sections 5 & 12. This was fixed by the authors in -13.

* Other IETF LC comments: None.

(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

(20/06/2024)

Here is my summary of the IESG reviews:

* Abstain from Paul: Paul acked that the authors made an effort to take into account
  some of his concerns. Paul still believes that there are challenges with
  the deployability of the solution. Paul explained also that some of his concerns
  are rooted to the ADD charter in general (policy out of scope). 

* Comment from Erik to clarify the use of DHCP Reconfigure.

  Resolution: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/pull/62/files

* Comments from John (https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues?q=scudder)

  Resolution: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/pull/68/files

* Comment form Roman about minimum slat length

  Resolution: Clarification provided on the list, but no change made so far.

* Comment from Murray about base64url normative ref

  Resolution: Added a normative reference to RFC4648

(13/06/2024)

Here is my Shepherd summary of the IETF LC:

* IANA review:

  - The comments received from the PvD DE were addressed in -11.

  - the Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names registry DE was OK

  - The Datatracker captures this: Expert Reviews OK

* Directorate reviews:

  (1) SECDIR raised a comment about the lack of a security cons related
      to SALT. This was fixed by the authors in -12. No follow-up though
      from the reviewer.

  (2) DNSDIR OK

  (3) ARTART raised a comment about changing some terminology.
      I agree with the authors reply (that same term was already
      used in other RFCs)

  (4) GENART review: The reviewer suggested some readability enhancements
      to Sections 5 & 12. This was fixed by the authors in -13.

* Other IETF LC comments: None.

(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

(20/06/2024)

Here is my summary of the IESG reviews:

* Abstain from Paul: Paul explained that some of his concerns are rooted
  to the ADD charter in general (policy out of scope).

* Comment from Erik to clarify the use of DHCP Reconfigure.

  Resolution: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/pull/62/files

* Comments from John (https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues?q=scudder)

  Resolution: https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/pull/68/files

* Comment form Roman about minimum slat length

  Resolution: Clarification provided on the list, but no change made so far.

* Comment from Murray about base64url normative ref

  Resolution: Added a normative reference to RFC4648

(13/06/2024)

Here is my Shepherd summary of the IETF LC:

* IANA review:

  - The comments received from the PvD DE were addressed in -11.

  - the Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names registry DE was OK

  - The Datatracker captures this: Expert Reviews OK

* Directorate reviews:

  (1) SECDIR raised a comment about the lack of a security cons related
      to SALT. This was fixed by the authors in -12. No follow-up though
      from the reviewer.

  (2) DNSDIR OK

  (3) ARTART raised a comment about changing some terminology.
      I agree with the authors reply (that same term was already
      used in other RFCs)

  (4) GENART review: The reviewer suggested some readability enhancements
      to Sections 5 & 12. This was fixed by the authors in -13.

* Other IETF LC comments: None.

(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

[Ballot discuss]
Easy fix: "base64url" is defined in RFC4648, but a normative reference to it is missing here.  Or is it already imported implicitly by one of the other normative references?  Nothing like that jumped out at me when I scanned the references.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Jiankang Yao for his ARTART review.

I support John's DISCUSS.

[IESG: I am concerned about the collection of ABSTAINs here.  Hopefully we can spend at least a brief time chatting about it before this moves forward.]

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Mallory Knodel for the GENART review.

** Section 5.  This design supports a “high entropy salt, up to 255 octets."  Is there a recommended minimum value?  It looks like the salt length can be zero.  What is the security implication of that?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. I don't have issues from transport protocol point of view. However, I am deeply concerned about the number of abstaines on the same issue. I feels like this specification to address the concerns before getting published. I also support John's discuss. I think the exception criteria for should be explained and effect of the exception to the SHOULD needs more description.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for this document. It's an interesting read, and modulo my DISCUSS comment which I think will be relatively easy to resolve, I don't see any showstoppers. However, the comments pursuant to several of the ABSTAIN positions are concerning, regarding complexity, deployability, etc. This isn't enough of my wheelhouse for me to either abstain or block the document on that basis, and I trust that the WG chairs, shepherd, and Area Director have made a carefully-considered call regarding what the consensus is and who's in the rough. So I expect to NOOBJ once my DISCUSS point is resolved.

## DISCUSS

### Section 6.2, "insecure" response is incompletely specified

      *Secure*: The response is used for validation.

      *Bogus* or *Indeterminate*: The response is rejected and
      validation is considered to have failed.

      *Insecure*: The client SHOULD retry the validation process using a
      different method, such as the one in Section 6.1, to ensure
      compatibility with unsigned names.

The specification for insecure appears dangerously incomplete. If an implementation chooses to disregard the SHOULD (in other words, it doesn't retry the process), what must it do? It seems to me that in that case it MUST consider validation to have failed. Whatever the right answer is, I think the document needs to be clear on this point.

[Ballot comment]
## COMMENT

### Section 5, informative should be normative

  The zone operator then publishes a "Verification Record" with the
  following structure, following advices such as in Sections 5.1 and
  5.2 of [I-D.ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques]:

The way you've written this straddles the line between being normative and just an example. To me, it smells more prescriptive than exemplary, and in that case, the reference should be normative, not informative, and you probably should say something stronger than "following advices" (sic).

On the other hand, if the intention is to say “please follow the prevailing best practices“, say that instead, although really, why would you need to say anything at that point?

### Section 6.1

In some cases, due either to an adversarial network or more innocent reasons, the query to the "tamperproof" external resolver might be blocked and never return an answer. I think with a close reading of the document this is OK because "clients MUST resolve the Verification Record for that name" and in the blocked case, it won't be resolved and so the MUST won't be fulfilled. Nonetheless, I wonder if it would be worth adding a few sentences about this case.

### Section 10 begins in medias res

Section 10 begins, "When the VPN tunnel is IPsec". This creates whiplash for the reader. What VPN tunnel? Were we talking about VPN tunnels? I even searched back in the document to make sure, and nope, this is the only place the string "VPN" occurs. I assume you mean something like, "when the client is using a VPN tunnel, and the tunnel is IPsec". Please, update the section so you don't start in the middle.

[Ballot comment]
I am balloting Abstain for the same reasons as Paul Wouters.
In addition, I believe that changes this integral to the resolution path should have been coordinated with the DNSOP WG, with the WGLC copied to them at a bare minimum.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority-13
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S11

* My recollection is that DHCP reconfigure is not mandatory to implement.
  If this is the case, it should probably be noted here lest readers obtain
  a false sense of the utility of this.

  The Reconfigure Accept Option suggests that it's optional for a client:

  - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8415.html#section-21.20
  - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-04#section-21.20

[Ballot comment]
I do not think this proposed protocol is deployable. I have there for balloted Abstain.

I've explained this in the past:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7AjzPN1rPLzbWXvxm9l2pdlF2PE/

The recent updates do not address my concerns.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Watson Ladd for the Security Review. 

This draft reads well, and the Security Considerations appear to be correct (thanks for the addition of a paragraph for the salt construction).

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Watson Ladd for the Security Review. 

This draft reads well, and the Security Considerations appear to be correct (thanks for the addition of for the salt construction).

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

(13/06/2024)

Here is my Shepherd summary of the IETF LC:

* IANA review:

  - The comments received from the PvD DE were addressed in -11.

  - the Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names registry DE was OK

  - The Datatracker captures this: Expert Reviews OK

* Directorate reviews:

  (1) SECDIR raised a comment about the lack of a security cons related
      to SALT. This was fixed by the authors in -12. No follow-up though
      from the reviewer.

  (2) DNSDIR OK

  (3) ARTART raised a comment about changing some terminology.
      I agree with the authors reply (that same term was already
      used in other RFCs)

  (4) GENART review: The reviewer suggested some readability enhancements
      to Sections 5 & 12. This was fixed by the authors in -13.

* Other IETF LC comments: None.

(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

(06/06/2024)

Here is my Shepherd summary of the IETF LC:

* IANA review:

  - The comments received from the PvD DE were addressed in -11.

  - the Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names registry DE was OK

  - The Datatracker captures this: Expert Reviews OK

* Directorate reviews:

  (1) SECDIR raised a comment about the lack of a security cons related to SALT. This was fixed by the authors in -12. No follow-up though from the reviewer.

  (2) DNSDIR OK

  (3) ARTART raised a comment about changing some terminology. I agree with the authors reply (that same term was already used in other RFCs)

  (4) GENART review: a reviewer was assigned but no review received so far.

* Other IETF LC comments: None.

(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

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, in the Protocol Name Space Values registry in the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Authentication Option Name Spaces registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/auth-namespaces/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Split-horizon DNS
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the Additional Information PvD Keys registry in the Provisioning Domains (PvDs) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pvds/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

JSON Key: splitDnsClaims
Description: Verifiable locally served domains
Type: Array of Objects
Example:
[{
"resolver": "dns.example.net",
"parent": "example.com",
"subdomains": ["sub"],
"algorithm": "SHA384",
"salt": "abc...123"
}]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Third, a new registry is to be created called the PvD Split DNS Claims registry. The new registry will be located in the Provisioning Domains (PvDs) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pvds/

The new registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined in RFC8126.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

JSON key: resolver
Description: The Authentication Domain Name
Type: String
Example: "dns.example.net"
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

JSON key: parent
Description: The parent zone name
Type: String
Example: "example.com"
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

JSON key: subdomains
Description: An array containing the claimed subdomains
Type: Array of Strings
Example: ["sub"]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

JSON key: algorithm
Description: The hash algorithm
Type: String
Example: "SHA384"
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

JSON key: salt
Description: The salt (base64url)
Type: String
Example: "abc...123"
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names registry in the Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters registry group located at:

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

a single new registration will be made as follows:

RR Type: TXT
_NODE NAME: _splitdns-challenge
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: add-chairs@ietf.org, add@ietf.org, draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Establishing Local DNS Authority in Validated Split-Horizon Environments) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Adaptive DNS Discovery WG (add) to
consider the following document: - 'Establishing Local DNS Authority in
Validated Split-Horizon
  Environments'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-06. 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


  When split-horizon DNS is deployed by a network, certain domain names
  can be resolved authoritatively by a network-provided DNS resolver.
  DNS clients that are not configured to use this resolver by default
  can use it for these specific domains only.  This specification
  defines a mechanism for domain owners to inform DNS clients about
  local resolvers that are authorized to answer authoritatively for
  certain subdomains.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/



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

# 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/