TLS Client Authentication via DANE TLSA records
draft-ietf-dance-client-auth-14

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dance-client-auth-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the TLS ExtensionType Values registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Extension Name: dane_clientid
TLS 1.3: CR, CT
DTLS-Only: N
Recommended: N
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Comment:

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that this is the only action 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,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

DATE OF THIS WRITE UP: 2025-07-25.

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

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

This document did not get a lot of review as there weren't many people active
in the WG when it came to WGLC.

>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.)

No.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

No implementations.

Additional Reviews
>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.

No DNSOP or TLS reviews have occured as yet.
[DC] update:  Both DNS and secdir reviews have occurred.

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

no such reviews are needed

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what
>is

no YANG Module.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Checks
>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?

There are explicit references to TLS 1.2 (RFC5246, 6347), which idnits thinks
are obsolete, but they are correct.
[DC] update:  The draft now references RFC 9846 (TLS1.3).

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

no.

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

The intended status is Std Track, which is listed.

>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Yes, the authors were shown the Note Well when they posted the I-D.

>Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>listed as such?

Yes.

> If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Less than five.

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

trivial nits not yet fixed, will review for non-trivial ones later.

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

They seem okay.

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

none.

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

no.

>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?

no.

>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

No.

>Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
>especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

Confirmed that there was nothing to do.

>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.

None.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-09-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dance-chairs@ietf.org, dance@ietf.org, debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-dance-client-auth@ietf.org, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TLS Client Authentication via DANE TLSA records) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the DANE Authentication for Network
Clients Everywhere WG (dance) to consider the following document: - 'TLS
Client Authentication via DANE TLSA records'
  as Proposed Standard

This is a second IETF Last Call; this draft combines the dance-tls-clientid and dance-client-auth draft into one specification. It addresses all of the first IETF Last Call comments.

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 2026-09-29. 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


  The DANE TLSA protocol describes how to publish Transport Layer
  Security (TLS) server certificates or public keys in the DNS.  This
  document updates RFC 6698 and RFC 7671.  It describes how to use the
  TLSA record to publish client certificates or public keys, and also
  the rules and considerations for using them with TLS.  In addition,
  it defines a new TLS extension, DANE Client Identity, to convey the
  client's domain name identity to the server.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dance-client-auth/



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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-12-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dance-chairs@ietf.org, dance@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dance-client-auth@ietf.org, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, paul.wouters@aiven.io
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TLS Client Authentication via DANE TLSA records) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the DANE Authentication for Network
Clients Everywhere WG (dance) to consider the following document: - 'TLS
Client Authentication via DANE TLSA records'
  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 2025-12-23. 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


  The DANE TLSA protocol describes how to publish Transport Layer
  Security (TLS) server certificates or public keys in the DNS.  This
  document updates RFC 6698 and RFC 7671.  It describes how to
  additionally use the TLSA record to publish client certificates or
  public keys, and also the rules and considerations for using them
  with TLS.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dance-client-auth/



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

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

DATE OF THIS WRITE UP: 2025-07-25.

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

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

This document did not get a lot of review as there weren't many people active
in the WG when it came to WGLC.

>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.)

No.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

No implementations.

Additional Reviews
>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.

No DNSOP or TLS reviews have occured as yet.

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

no such reviews are needed

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what
>is

no YANG Module.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Checks
>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?

There are explicit references to TLS 1.2 (RFC5246, 6347), which idnits thinks
are obsolete, but they are correct.

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

no.

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

The intended status is Std Track, which is listed.

>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Yes, the authors were shown the Note Well when they posted the I-D.

>Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>listed as such?

Yes.

> If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Less than five.

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

trivial nits not yet fixed, will review for non-trivial ones later.

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

They seem okay.

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

none.

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

no.

>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?

no.

>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

No.

>Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
>especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

Confirmed that there was nothing to do.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

DATE OF THIS WRITE UP: 2025-07-25.

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

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

This document did not get a lot of review as there weren't many people active
in the WG when it came to WGLC.

>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.)

No.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

No implementations.

Additional Reviews
>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.

No DNSOP or TLS reviews have occured as yet.

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

no such reviews are needed

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what
>is

no YANG Module.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Checks
>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?

There are explicit references to TLS 1.2 (RFC5246, 6347), which idnits thinks
are obsolete, but they are correct.

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

no.

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

The intended status is Std Track, which is listed.

>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Yes, the authors were shown the Note Well when they posted the I-D.

>Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>listed as such?

Yes.

> If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Less than five.

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

trivial nits not yet fixed, will review for non-trivial ones later.

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

They seem okay.

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

none.

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

no.

>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?

no.

>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

No.

>Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
>especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

Confirmed that there was nothing to do.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

DATE OF THIS WRITE UP: 2025-07-07
I-D:  draft-ietf-dance-client-auth-08

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

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

This document did not get a lot of review as there weren't many people active
in the WG when it came to WGLC.

>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.)

No.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

No known implementations.

Additional Reviews
>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.

No DNSOP or TLS reviews have occured as yet.

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

No such reviews are needed

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what
>is

No YANG Module.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Checks
>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?

There are no remaining nits.

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

no.

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

Intended RFC status should be Standards Track, but DT does not yet reflect this.

>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Yes.

>Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>listed as such?

Yes.

> If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Less than five.

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

no remaining nits

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

They seem okay.

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

none.

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

no.

>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?

no.

>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

No.

>Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
>especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

Confirmed that there was nothing to do.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

DATE OF THIS WRITE UP: 2025-06-08.

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

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

This document did not get a lot of review as there weren't many people active
in the WG when it came to WGLC.

>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.)

No.

>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 recommends) or elsewhere
>(where)?

No implementations.

Additional Reviews
>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.

No DNSOP or TLS reviews have occured as yet.

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

no such reviews are needed

>If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
>formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what
>is

no YANG Module.

>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.

None.

Document Shepherd Checks
>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?

The document has a number of trivial to fix nits that have yet to be addressed.

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

no.

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

Intended RFC status should be Standards Track, but DT does not yet reflect this.

>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Yes, the authors were shown the Note Well when they posted the I-D.

>Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>listed as such?

Yes.

> If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Less than five.

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

trivial nits not yet fixed, will review for non-trivial ones later.

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

They seem okay.
Maybe the architecture reference should be normative, but it's a toss-up.

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

none.

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

no.

>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?

no.

>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

No.

>Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
>especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

Confirmed that there was nothing to do.

>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.

None.