(1) RFC is Best Current Practice, and this is the correct RFC type
(2)
Technical Summary:
Many services on the Internet need to verify ownership or control of
a domain in the Domain Name System (DNS). This verification is often
done by requesting a specific DNS record to be visible in the domain.
There are a variety of techniques in use today, with different pros
and cons. This document proposes some practices to avoid known
problems.
Working Group Summary:
WG worked and collabrated on resolving any and all isssues.
Initially the document started off as an Informational document attempting to
document all the known domain verification methods. But over time the working
group felt the document would be better suited as a BCP.
There was solid consenus.
Document Quality:
Document is of good quality.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari
(3) The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document for content as
well as simple editorial checks (spelling/grammar). The shepherd feels the
document is ready for publication.
(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns on the depth or breadth of the
reviews.
(5) There is no need for broader review.
(6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd.
(7) No IPR disclosures
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(8) During the WGLC an individual reached out to the Shepherd about a different
solution for domain verification. However, this solution was patented and they
were not interested in any royalty free licensing to the IETF. We contacted
them during the shepherd write up process to request they file an IPR, but we
have not heard back from them
(7) No IPR disclosures
(8) There is no IPR
(9) The WG Consensus on this document is strong.
(10) There has been no appeals.
(11) The following nits are raised, with our replies:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1464
This should not be an issue as this experimental RFC has been deployed for
some time
(12) No formal review needed
(13) All references have been identified as normative or informative.
(14) All normative references are in a clear state.
(15) There is one downward normative reference of Experimental RFC 1464, but
this should not be an issue as its been deployed for some time now.
(16) This RFC will not change any existing RFCs.
(17) No IANA considerations
(18) N/A
(19) N/A
(20) No Yang Necessary