Shepherd writeup

1. Summary

Document Shepherd:   Tim Wicinski
Area Director:       Joel Jaggeli

Document Type: Best Current Practice

Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is usually good for this), and why the working group has chosen the requested publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).


   This document describes problems that a DNSSEC aware resolver or application might run into within a non-compliant infrastructure; outlining potential detection and mitigation techniques.  This document attempts to create a shared approach to detect and overcome    network issues that a DNSSEC deployment may face.

As Document Shepherd, I feel the document is ready for publication and I stand behind the document.

2. Review and Consensus

This document was actively reviewed, though in organized bursts when the authors were available.  The authors were very actively in addressing issues brought up and everything brought up both in meetings and on the mailing list were addressed to satisfaction of the working group.

Also, multiple implementations of the compliance checks were written, including teams not involved with the writing of this draft.  This has shown the working group there is a strong consensus from desire for these checks to be standardized.

- Intellectual Property

     There is one known IPR issue that has been disclosed, and all the authors and working group feel this has little to no bearing on the document itself.

4. Other Points

 - There are no downward normative references.

 - This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

 - There are no known formal reviews that are needed for this document.

 - The document uses FQDNs from and, outside of RFC2606. However, these domains have been registered for the purpose of returning answers for the various tests.

- IANA Considerations

     There are no IANA Considerations for this document.