Skip to main content

Recommendations for DNSSEC Resolvers Operators
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-05-16
07 (System) Document has expired
2023-11-26
07 Eliot Lear Tag Revised I-D Needed set.
2023-11-26
07 Eliot Lear ISE state changed to Response to Review Needed from In ISE Review
2023-11-13
07 (System) Revised I-D Needed tag cleared
2023-11-13
07 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-07.txt
2023-11-13
07 Daniel Migault New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Migault)
2023-11-13
07 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision
2023-10-14
06 Eliot Lear Tag Revised I-D Needed set.
2023-10-14
06 Eliot Lear ISE state changed to In ISE Review from Submission Received
2023-10-03
06 Eliot Lear Document shepherd changed to (None)
2023-10-03
06 Eliot Lear ISE state changed to Submission Received
2023-10-03
06 Eliot Lear Stream changed to ISE from IETF
2023-07-06
06 Tim Wicinski Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2023-07-06
06 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to Parked WG Document from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2023-06-28
06 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-06.txt
2023-06-28
06 (System) New version approved
2023-06-28
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan York , Daniel Migault , Edward Lewis
2023-06-28
06 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision
2023-06-10
05 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-05.txt
2023-06-10
05 (System) New version approved
2023-06-10
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan York , Daniel Migault , Edward Lewis
2023-06-10
05 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision
2023-05-22
04 Barry Leiba Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Waiting for resolution of WG and SecDir comments
2023-05-22
04 Barry Leiba Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Pete Resnick was marked no-response
2023-05-11
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Serious Issues. Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-05-06
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Serious Issues. Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman.
2023-04-06
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2023-03-31
04 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Pete Resnick
2023-03-31
04 Tim Wicinski Requested Last Call review by ARTART
2023-03-31
04 Tim Wicinski Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2023-03-29
04 Tim Wicinski
several editorial comments came in from a reviewer, with most of them helping to clarify the language.  chairs are working wiht authors and reviewer to …
several editorial comments came in from a reviewer, with most of them helping to clarify the language.  chairs are working wiht authors and reviewer to get these addressed in a timely manner.
2023-03-29
04 Tim Wicinski Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2023-03-29
04 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2023-01-25
04 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04.txt
2023-01-25
04 Daniel Migault New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Migault)
2023-01-25
04 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision
2023-01-24
03 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-03.txt
2023-01-24
03 Daniel Migault New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Migault)
2023-01-24
03 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision
2023-01-24
02 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-02.txt
2023-01-24
02 Daniel Migault New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Migault)
2023-01-24
02 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision
2022-11-23
01 James Gannon Request for Early review by DNSDIR Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: James Gannon.
2022-11-23
01 James Gannon
Request for Early review by DNSDIR Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: James Gannon. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier …
Request for Early review by DNSDIR Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: James Gannon. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2022-11-14
01 (System) Document has expired
2022-11-08
01 Jim Reid Request for Early review by DNSDIR is assigned to James Gannon
2022-11-08
01 Jim Reid Request for Early review by DNSDIR is assigned to James Gannon
2022-11-08
01 Warren Kumari Requested Early review by DNSDIR
2022-10-19
01 Tim Wicinski Notification list changed to andrew.mcconachie@icann.org because the document shepherd was set
2022-10-19
01 Tim Wicinski Document shepherd changed to Andrew McConachie
2022-10-19
01 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-10-16
01 Tim Wicinski
(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? …
(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?

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

Working Group Summary:

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?

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

(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.

(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 took place.

(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.

(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.

(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?

(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.)

(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.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

(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 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.

(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).

(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, YANG modules, etc.

(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?

2022-07-27
01 Tim Wicinski Added to session: IETF-114: dnsop  Thu-1330
2022-06-07
01 Tim Wicinski Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/mglt/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements
2022-05-13
01 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-01.txt
2022-05-13
01 Daniel Migault New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Migault)
2022-05-13
01 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision
2020-11-22
00 (System) Document has expired
2020-05-23
00 Tim Wicinski Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2020-05-21
00 Tim Wicinski This document now replaces draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements instead of None
2020-05-21
00 Daniel Migault New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-00.txt
2020-05-21
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-05-21
00 Daniel Migault Set submitter to "Daniel Migault ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
2020-05-21
00 Daniel Migault Uploaded new revision