Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-09

draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update

(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?

RFC is Standards Track, which is listed and we feel is correct. 

Technical Summary

   The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in
   order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non-
   existence.  To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS
   authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm
   implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there
   is at least one algorithm that all implementations support.  This
   document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements
   and usage guidance for DNSSEC.  This document obsoletes

Working Group Summary

The Working Group did not have any controvesery on this document. 
There was discussion around the 2119 Normative terms as this draft
uses RECOMMENDED/NOT RECOMMENDED instead of SHOULD/SHOULD NOT. 
This did not cause any probelms gaining consensus 

Document Quality

Document is very concise and informative as it updates the 
list of recommendations for DNSKEY algorithms. 

Personnel

  Document Shepherd? Tim Wicinski
  Responsible Area Director?  Warren Kumari

(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 performed a review for content as well as editorial 
review, and found the document ready for publication.  

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

No Concerns. 

(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 additional Reviews 

(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.

No Issues 

(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.

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

No IPR disclosures

(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?   

Consensus is solid 

(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 Appeals threatened 

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

The abstract references RFC6944, but also includes a reference, which it 
should not. Also, 'NOT RECOMMENDED' is not in the list of 2119 key words
though it is used.

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

No formal reviews 

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

All references have been identified. 

(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?

No 

(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.

This draft will obsolete 6944

(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).

(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.

No IANA considerations 

(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.
Back