(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?
The Document is labeled as "Standards Track", and this is the proper
(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:
This document describes a data representation for collections of DNS
messages. The format is designed for efficient storage and
transmission of large packet captures of DNS traffic; it attempts to
minimize the size of such packet capture files but retain the full
DNS message contents along with the most useful transport metadata.
Working Group Summary
There was no controvesy with the working group. However, during an
IETF Hackathon, several issues were during the proof of concept.
The document was corrected to address these issues, and is a
stronger document because of this.
There is an existing implementation, as well as converters from
this format to other packet formats.
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
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 Document Shepherd did both a technical review, as well as an
editorial review. Document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
(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?
There are no concerns.
(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.
Authors have confirmed IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
An IPR disclosure has been filed, by an engineer who feels that
their former employer *may* have IPR implications. They can not
speak for their former employee, and the owner of the
patent never came forward.
The working group initially felt the document should not
move forward until the IPR was resolved. But after much
discussion, and no solid claim placed, the working group decided
to move this forward.
(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?
Document has solid WG Consensus as well as wide consensus.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
(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
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(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?
(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
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
There are no IANA Considerations.
(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.