Shepherd writeup

1. Summary

Document Shepherd: Benno Overeinder
Area Director: Warren Kumari

Document Type: Informational

The draft documents operational models for deploying DNSSEC signed
zones across multiple DNS providers to distribute their authoritative
DNS service.  It presents challenges depending on the configuration
and feature set in use, and presents several deployment models that
may be suitable.

Informational status is appropriate for the document.  It outlines
possible deployment models and with these also the operational
considerations.  The document status is correctly indicated in the
title page header.

2. Review and Consensus

The document has been reviewed and discussed on the DNSOP mailing list
and during DNSOP workgroup meetings.  Contributions were done by a
relative small number of interested folks, feedback by the WG was
promptly integrated in the document.  No points of difficulty or
controversy appeared and consensus was quick.  There has been good
consensus during the WGLC period.

External parties (DNS zone owners and DNS providers) have architected
the DNSSEC multi-provider model in their operations and use it in
their daily job (e.g., see DNSOP mailing list, email thread “[DNSOP]
Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec”.)

The security section mentions the need for strong authentication to
protect DNSSEC key material, but although the usefulness of the
warning, this is beyond the scope of the document.

The document shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the
document or with the WG process.  The shepherd stands behind the
document and thinks the document is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property

There is no IPR related material in the document.

4. Other Points

!Nits reports:

 ** The document seems to lack both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119

     RFC 2119 keyword, line 248: '...   It is RECOMMENDED that the provider...'

We can address this during the final version of the document and ask
the authors how strongly they are attached to the term RECOMMENDED,
while all other text does not use RFC 2119 keywords.

IANA Considerations: N/A

There is no IPR related material in the document.

References are checked and all normative references are in a clear

The publication of the document does *not* change the status of any
existing RFC.