Skip to main content

Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries
draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-03-15
11 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8109, changed abstract to 'This document describes the queries that a DNS resolver should emit …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8109, changed abstract to 'This document describes the queries that a DNS resolver should emit to initialize its cache.  The result is that the resolver gets both a current NS Resource Record Set (RRset) for the root zone and the necessary address information for reaching the root servers.', changed standardization level to Best Current Practice, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-03-15, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created alias BCP 209)
2017-03-15
11 (System) RFC published
2017-03-15
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8109">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2017-02-24
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8109">AUTH48</a> from EDIT
2017-01-31
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-01-31
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-01-31
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-01-30
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2017-01-30
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2017-01-30
11 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-01-30
11 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-01-30
11 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2017-01-21
11 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-12-24
11 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-11.txt
2016-12-24
11 (System) New version approved
2016-12-24
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Peter Koch" <pk@DENIC.DE>, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, "Matt Larson" <matt.larson@icann.org>
2016-12-24
11 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2016-12-23
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-12-23
10 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-10.txt
2016-12-23
10 (System) New version approved
2016-12-23
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Peter Koch" <pk@DENIC.DE>, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, "Matt Larson" <matt.larson@icann.org>
2016-12-23
10 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2016-12-12
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue.
2016-12-08
09 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-12-01
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern.
2016-12-01
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-12-01
09 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-12-01
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-11-30
09 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I find myself curious about both SHOULDs in

  Resolver software SHOULD treat the response to the priming query as a
  normal …
[Ballot comment]
I find myself curious about both SHOULDs in

  Resolver software SHOULD treat the response to the priming query as a
  normal DNS response, just as it would use any other data fed to its
  cache.  Resolver software SHOULD NOT expect exactly 13 NS RRs.
 
Do you think these SHOULDs (especially the first one) are required for interoperation? I'm wondering (1) why they aren't MUSTs, and (2) why RFC 2119 language is actually needed at all. If they are RFC 2119 SHOULDs, what happens if the resolver software violates them?
2016-11-30
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-11-30
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-11-30
09 Terry Manderson
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for producing a well written artefact.

I also support Stephen's request to identify the scenarios in which "Some implementers have chosen …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for producing a well written artefact.

I also support Stephen's request to identify the scenarios in which "Some implementers have chosen other directions, some of which work well and others of which fail (sometimes disastrously) under different conditions." An appendix would be fine IMHO.

Given you raise some (awareness) issues in the security consideration section, if an administrator implements RFC7706 would that alter any of those concerns? (admittedly, potentially buying others that are well documented in 7706)
2016-11-30
09 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-11-30
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I support Stephen's comments.
2016-11-30
09 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-11-30
09 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- intro: References for directions that fail "disastrously"
would be good, if only to decrease the chances that other
implementers choose known-bad approaches. …
[Ballot comment]

- intro: References for directions that fail "disastrously"
would be good, if only to decrease the chances that other
implementers choose known-bad approaches.

- section 5, 2nd para: such an attacker can also see what
queries are being emitted by the resolver, and, in the
absence of qname minimisation, that can be quite privacy
sensitive. I think it'd be well worth noting that with a
reference to RFC7816 as a possible mitigation.
2016-11-30
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-11-29
09 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-11-29
09 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-11-29
09 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
In section 3.1, is there a reason the requirement in paragraph 2 does not get a 2119 keywords, when the requirement in the …
[Ballot comment]
In section 3.1, is there a reason the requirement in paragraph 2 does not get a 2119 keywords, when the requirement in the first paragraph does? They seem similar in impact.
2016-11-29
09 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-11-29
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-11-29
09 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-11-22
09 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-11-22
09 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-11-13
09 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-11-13
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot has been issued
2016-11-13
09 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-11-13
09 Joel Jaeggli Created "Approve" ballot
2016-11-13
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was changed
2016-11-13
09 Joel Jaeggli Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-01
2016-11-13
09 Joel Jaeggli Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-11-10
09 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-11-03
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2016-11-03
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2016-11-03
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2016-11-03
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2016-10-31
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-10-31
09 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2016-10-27
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-10-27
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-10-27
09 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-10-27
09 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, joelja@gmail.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, joelja@gmail.com, draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming@ietf.org, "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09.txt> (Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document:
- 'Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries'
  <draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09.txt> as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-11-10. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the queries that a DNS resolver should emit
  to initialize its cache.  The result is that the resolver gets both a
  current NS RRSet for the root zone and the necessary address
  information for reaching the root servers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc5452: Measures for Making DNS More Resilient against Forged Answers (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc4033: DNS Security Introduction and Requirements (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc3226: DNSSEC and IPv6 A6 aware server/resolver message size requirements (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.


2016-10-27
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-10-27
09 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2016-10-26
09 Joel Jaeggli Last call was requested
2016-10-26
09 Joel Jaeggli Last call announcement was generated
2016-10-26
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot approval text was generated
2016-10-26
09 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was generated
2016-10-26
09 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-10-24
09 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-09-18
09 Tim Wicinski
1. Summary

Document Shepherd:  Tim Wicinski
Area Director:      Joel Jaggeli

Document Type:      Best Current Practice

This document describes the queries that …
1. Summary

Document Shepherd:  Tim Wicinski
Area Director:      Joel Jaggeli

Document Type:      Best Current Practice

This document describes the queries that a DNS resolver should emit
to initialize its cache.  The result is that the resolver gets both a
current NS RRSet for the root zone and the necessary address
information for reaching the root servers.


2. Review and Consensus


This document has been active in the working group for several years. It
had strong consensus to adopt and publish.  However, due to working
group inertia and authors busy schedules, the document stalled several times.
It was picked back up recently and the document went through an editing
process to streamline the language.

This time through the process there was enough attention paid by the working
group to address any outstanding issues, provide editorial comments, and see
the document through.

3. Intellectual Property

The authors stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR
related to this document has already been disclosed.

4. Other Points

There are no downward references to this document, and the shepherd is
satisfied with this.

IANA Considerations:
    There are no IANA Considerations


Checklist

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

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?

X - If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?

X - IANA Considerations:
2016-09-18
09 Tim Wicinski Responsible AD changed to Joel Jaeggli
2016-09-18
09 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-09-18
09 Tim Wicinski IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-09-18
09 Tim Wicinski IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-09-15
09 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09.txt
2016-09-15
09 Paul Hoffman New version approved
2016-09-15
09 Paul Hoffman
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Peter Koch" <pk@DENIC.DE>, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, "Matt Larson" <matt.larson@icann.org>, "Paul E. Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@icann.org …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Peter Koch" <pk@DENIC.DE>, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, "Matt Larson" <matt.larson@icann.org>, "Paul E. Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
2016-09-15
09 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-09-09
08 Tim Wicinski Changed document writeup
2016-08-26
08 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-08.txt
2016-08-19
07 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-08-04
07 Tim Wicinski Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
2016-08-04
07 Tim Wicinski Document shepherd changed to Tim Wicinski
2016-08-04
07 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-03-19
07 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07.txt
2016-01-13
06 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-06.txt
2015-03-09
05 Peter Koch New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-05.txt
2014-07-27
04 Tim Wicinski Document shepherd changed to Joe Abley
2014-05-10
04 Tim Wicinski Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2014-02-14
04 Peter Koch New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-04.txt
2013-07-15
03 Peter Koch New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-03.txt
2010-04-29
02 (System) Document has expired
2009-10-26
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-02.txt
2008-07-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-01.txt
2007-07-05
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-00.txt