(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 / Proposed Standard It meets the requirements of a Proposed Standard
described in RFC 7127 (Section 3.1). Yes, it is indicated properly on the title
page 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:
In the DNS, resolvers employ caching to reduce both latency for end users and
load on authoritative name servers. The process of resolution may result in
one of three types of responses: (1) a response containing the requested data;
(2) a response indicating the requested data does not exist; or (3) a
non-response due to a resolution failure in which the resolver does not
receive any useful information regarding the data's existence. This document
concerns itself only with the third type.
Working Group Summary:
This document proceeded through the WG without too much discussion. Where
there has been discussion it has been mostly positive, and when it has not
been positive the authors have modified the document in response. The
document addresses a short coming of the DNS standard by clarifying resolver
behavior for a specific set of resolution failures. It does not modify the
DNS protocol or provide any new functionality. Resolver software might have
been doing this already, but this document provides a proscribed method for
handling these cases.
Document Quality:
The document is of high quality and describes the requisite behavior
succinctly. Both authoritative network operators and developers of DNS
software offered their comments on list and the document authors incorporated
their comments.
Personnel:
Andrew McConachie is the Document Shepherd.
Warren Kumari is the Responsible Area Director.
Peter van Dijk is the reviewer from the DNS Directorate.
(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. I
read the review by Peter van Dijk and read all messages sent to the list on
this document. I also read versions 3,4,5 of the document.
(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. Peter van
Dijk's review from the DNS Directorate is Completed. His review is on v3 and
the document is currently at v5. Thus, his conclusion that the document is
Almost Ready is possibly out of date.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-03-dnsdir-lc-van-dijk-2023-06-26/
(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 has not been
much discussion on this document on the list. However, what discussion there
has been has been overwhelmingly positive and in cases where the reception has
not been positive the authors have adjusted their text in response.
(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?
No IPR
(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
(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? Very little discussion was seen on
list. What was seen on list was overwhelmingly in favor of publication, but
there was limited conversation. The authors responded quickly to Joe Abley's
recent concerns and addressed them in version 5.
(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. I have no
nits with this document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A
(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? No normative references exist to
unpublished RFCs or other documents in an unclear state.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There are no downward normative references.
(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 I-D updates RFC 2308, RFC 4035, and RFC 4697. RFC 2308 is
mentioned in the abstract, the introduction, and it is clear what is being
updated about it. RFC 4035 is not mentioned in the abstract or the
introduction, and it is not clear what is being updated about it. RFC 4697 is
not mentioned in the abstract, it is mentioned in the introduction, and it is
clear what is being updated about it.
(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 8126). N/A
(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. N/A
(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, YANG modules, etc. N/A
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342? N/A