Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority

# 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
Back