Shepherd writeup
rfc8553-07

Summary

Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf, combined with
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix.


1)
Document Type:
   BCP


2)
Technical Summary:

   Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name
   prefix, which creates a space for constrained interpretation of
   resource records, were specified without the benefit of an IANA
   registry.  This produced an entirely uncoordinated set of name-
   creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace.  A registry
   now has been defined.  However the existing specifications that use
   underscore naming need to be modified, to be in line with the new
   registry.  This document specifies those changes.  The changes
   preserve existing software and operational practice, while adapting
   the specifications for those practices to the newer underscore
   registry model.

Working Group Summary:

   This document has a very long history, with multiple, extended
   periods of hiatus.  It's recent activity received substantial
   working group participant commentary that produced substantial
   changes to the design of the proposed registry.  The latest rounds
   comments were primarily about minor editorial points or
   clarification of implications, rather than changes to the design.
   Multiple participants have commented on the work, over time and
   recently.  They are cited in the document Acknowledgements
   section. 

   Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
   was there controversy about particular points or were there
   decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

   WG criticism of the design approach produced at least two major
   revisions to the design. 

Document Quality:

   This work is explicitly designed to require no software or
   operational changes.  Changes is necessiates are restricted to the
   relevant IETF documents, to use standard registry processes. 

   There are no other reviewers that merit special mentioning.

Personnel:

   Document shepherd: Benno Overeinder
   Area Director:     Warren Kumari
 

3)

The shepherd was involved at the final stages of the draft and its
Working Group Last Call.  Tim Wicinski (DNSNOP chair) was involved in
the earlier version of the document, and advised on the split-up of
the original draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf into two documents
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf and draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix for scope
and clarity. 

We did talk with application area to have good reviews from them.


4)
The document shepherd has no any concerns about the depth or breadt of
the reviews.


5) 
The companion document, draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix, updates a large
number of existing RFCs.  This document and the companion should be
published simultaneously.  The specified updates will need review for
adequacy and could cause significant delay in publication. It will be
useful to find a way to expedite and coordinate these additional
reviews.


6)
There are not other specific concerns or issues.


7)
The author has 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.


8)
There has no IPR disclosure been filed that references this document.


9)
There is a solid WG consensus behind the document. The document has
been reviewed by a fair group of individuals (almost twenty) over the
past period.  Constructive comments were made on the mailing list and
feedback was incorporated in the document or comments were settled on
the mailing list.


10)
There has been no indications of discontent with respect to the document.


11)
No nits.


12)
For the documnet no formal review criteria are needed.  One concern
might be conformance to IANA requirements for creating a registry.
IANA's documented guidance for this has been followed.


13)
All references within this document been identified as either normative or informative.


14)
The accompanying document draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix depends this
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.  Both documents are send together in a
bundle to the AD.


15)
There or no downward normative references references (see RFC 3967).


16)
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf does not alter any existing documents.

draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix updates a large number of existing RFCs;
they are listed in the Updates document header.


17)
The IANA considerations section is adequate; it is consistent withthe
body of the document.


18)
DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry

   Guidance for expert review is in Section 5 of
   draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.  Expert review concerns basic matters of
   form and small amounts of registry detail.  It does not require
   deep knowledge of technical aspects of what the larger topic for
   which a registry entry is needed, not deep knowledge of DNS
   technology. 


19)
The documents were produced with an XML editor and were processed
through the IETF's ID Nits engine, and txt files were produced from
the XML by the IETF's Internet Drafts submission process.
Back