1. Summary
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Area Director: Warren Kumari
Document Type:
Document is Informational, but documents the moving of two standards to HISTORIC.
This document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and
reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic.
2. Review and Consensus
Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the
working group and external parties, and explain in a general sense how
much of the interested community is behind the document. Explain anything
notable about the discussion of the document.
Consensus was Brought and Solid.
3. Intellectual Property
N/A
4. Other Points
Note any downward references (see RFC 3967)
and whether they appear in the DOWNREF Registry
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry),
as these need to be announced during Last Call.
N/A
-----
Checklist
This section is not meant to be submitted, but is here as a useful
checklist of things the document shepherd is expected to have verified
before publication is requested from the responsible Area Director. If
the answers to any of these is "no", please explain the situation in
the body of the writeup.
X Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is
ready for publication?
X Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
X Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as
a brief summary?
X Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in
the introduction?
X Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.)
been requested and/or completed?
X Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist),
checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so
on -- and determined that the document passes the tests? (In general,
nits should be fixed before the document is sent to the IESG. If there
are reasons that some remain (false positives, perhaps, or abnormal
things that are necessary for this particular document), explain them.)
X Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any
IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance
with BCPs 78 and 79?
X Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they
have been classified?
X Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for
advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
X If publication of this document changes the status of any existing
RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the
changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just
mentioned) in the introduction?
N/A If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
X IANA Considerations:
- Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA
have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they
can perform the required actions.
- Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated
with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
- Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check
them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
- Have you checked that any registrations made by this document
correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate
registries?
- For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert
Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group
had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready
for last call?
- For any new registries that this document creates, has the working
group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and
discussed the alternatives? Have reasonable registry names been
chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries),
and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly
specified?