Shepherd writeup
rfc7671-16

(1) What type of RFC is being requested: Standards Track.  This document
updates RFC 6698, which is a Standards Track document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up.  Technical Summary:

This document clarifies and updates the DNS-Based Authentication of Named
Entities (DANE) TLSA specification based on subsequent implementation
experience.  It also contains guidance for implementers, operators and
protocol developers who want to make use of DANE records.

Working Group Summary:

This document receieved significant discussion, and reflects new
understanding of how DANE is being used and deployed. It provides advice to
operators and implementors.

Document Quality:

This document describes how to actually use and interpret RFC 6698 now that
we have some experience with it. It is very clearly written, easily
understood, and makes a good introductory document as well.


Personnel:

Warren Kumari is the Document Shepherd, Stephen Farrell is Responsible...

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.  The DS has followed the progression of the document as
it progressed through its many versions. The document has had a long life,
and the authors have done a great job of keeping it alive, and updated as we
have gained new experience.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?  Nope.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective?  Nope.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should
be aware of?  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures?
Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
Strong. The final
WGLC only get a few responses, but they were positive, and the document has
received significant discussion and updates over the years.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
Nope.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
None.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria.
It doesn't --- largely because there are none.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
No. There are two
*informative* references to drafts, one of which is with the IESG, the other
with the RFC Editor.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
Nope.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs?
This updates RFC 6698.  This is on the title
page, listed in the abstract, and there is a section (12) explaining the
changes. The introduction discusses why updates / clarifications were made,
and points to the section describing the changes.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section.
"This specification requires no support from IANA." -- I'll spare
you the standard joke about having read that multiple times, the font,
etc... at least, this time....

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations.
None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language,
such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No formal language in
the document.
Back