Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) The RFC is being requested as BCP


Technical Summary

   Failing to respond to DNS queries, or responding incorrectly, 
   causes both immediate operational problems and long term 
   problems with protocol development.
   This document identifies a number of common kinds of DNS queries which
   some servers either fail to respond or else respond incorrectly.
   This document also suggests procedures for zone operators to apply to
   identify and remediate the problem.

Working Group Summary

  The document initially perscribed remediation for failing to 
  respond correctly.  After much working group debate, this
  wording was removed and the document focused on documenting
  the failure scenarios. 

Document Quality

  Document quality is good and has been through several reviews.


Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari

(3) The Document went through an exhaustive review by the Document 
Shepherd.  We went through several editorial iterations during the
working group process before WGLC.  We feel 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) There is no IPR

(9) WG Consensus is solid.  There has been many iterations and comments from a 
broad spectrum of working group participants.

(10) There has been no appeals.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

(12) No formal reviews needed.

(13) All references have been identified as either normative or informative

(14) There are no normative references waiting to advance. 

(15) There are no downward normative references

(16) This RFC will not change any existing RFCs.

(17) No IANA Considerations. 

(18)  No new IANA Registries 

(19) N/A