# 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