Shepherd writeup
rfc7672-19

(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?

Standards Track 


(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 explians in  detail how MTAs (Mail-Transfer-Agent) use
TLSA records in setting up SSL proteced sessions. This document is
based on implementation and deployment experience. The
document covers offers guidance on many corner cases in both in DANE
SSL setup as well in mail transport. 

This document has been implemented in two major MTA distributions, and
there is growing usage base. 


Working Group Summary:

There has been good solid discussion on this document, there is strong
consensus about the whole document. 

Document Quality:

The document is detailied and covers many corner cases some of with are
DNS related to email. The protocol specified here is tested in
practice and that is reflected in the document. The document educates
the readers about choices to avoid pitfalls in implmentations and operations. 
Email people are encouraged to review the document. 
It is helpful to read this document along with its companion document
draft-ietf-dane-srv-xx.  The two document cross referene
each other to avoid dupliaiton. 

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Olafur Gudmundsson
Area Director: 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. 

The document shepert has reviewed the document multiple times. This
document is ready for publication. Editors have been responsive
in addressesing issues. 


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

NO 

(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. 

No, but email people should take a look. 


(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. 

NONE. 

(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? 

YES 


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

NO


(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


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise 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 

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

None left. 


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

Not needed 

(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? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? 

There is one document that is normative that is in WG progress we will
be attemtpting to advance it soon, thus the expection is that this
document will wait for the missing document draft-ietf-dane-ops-xx to
catch up in publication process. 


(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. 

NO


(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. 

No 

(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
5226). 

No IANA actions 

(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. 

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. 

Does not apply 
Back