Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Experimental is requested, and indicated in the header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
This document proposes a method to publish and "locate" S/MIME keys
via DNS. The goal of this approach is to make it easier to find
S/MIME keys for email addresses.  The document reuses  a "method" from RFC7929
to convert email-address into a special normal form. that is limited but is
expected to cover many cases. The S/MIME DNS record specified has been
allocated by an Expert Review.

While the method inherited from RFC7929 has some detractors, this is an
experimental document, and that should not block the publication.

Working Group Summary:

The main issues that the WG has discussed are
a) is it a good idea to publish email addresses in DNSSEC signed zone?
b) is the role of the normalization from strictly a normalization or an
obfuscation as well?
The consensus of the WG is that as the publication is by the zone owner
it is an opt-in policy, there is no requirement for adoption thus the
issue need to be addressed in the light of each organizations
polices, i.e this is not a protocol issue.

There is working group consensus to advance this document.

Document Quality:

This document is of high quality, and editors have been real good at making the
document better.

This document stands on the shoulders of RFC 7929


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Sheperd is Olafur Gudmundsson
Responsible AD is : Stephen Farrell,

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

Document Shepherd has read every version of the document, and worked with the
editors in addressing issues. A extensive working group last call was
conducted, along with with a session at a DANE meeting where people from the
email community had a frank discussion about the issues and scope of the
document. This document has advanced as far as it can inside the WG and
punishing as Experimental is the the desire of the WG.

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

Not really.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

Number of respected members of the email community have commented on the

(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? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

There are are two issues that have been raised over and over again.
A. Do not publish email addresses in the DNS.
B. You are not guaranteed to find the key of the actual person you
want to send signed/encrypted email to.

Both of these issues have been refuted and as publication is optional
A. does not really apply. For B. there conversion technique is has got
extensive input and improved based on that. There is not much more we
can do at this point to address it, and the document is basically a copy of

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Two IPR’s have been filed both for the same patent

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

Not sure as in my day job I’m not allowed to read patents.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Strong enough

(10) 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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Yes the document was reviewed by DNS RR type Registry experts.

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


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.


(17) 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 protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC

Only IANA action requested is to update a reference upon publication of
this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.


(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.