Shepherd writeup
rfc8490-20

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.

Shepherd Write up for draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal

(1) The RFC is Proposed Standard, and this is proper as it's adding a
new DNS OPCODE.  

(2) 

Technical Summary: 

This document is defining a new DNS OPCODE, for DNS Stateful
Operations (DSO). These DSO messages communicate with persistent 
stateful DNS sessions. 

Working Group Summary:

The Working Group spent an inordinate amount of time on this document, as
there was some concern that this was attempting to extend the reach of
DNS beyond the scope of the working group.  However, after several iterations,
the working group came to consensus on the document, and strong consensus to 
move forward.

Document Quality: 

There are currently no existing implementations of the protocol. However, 
this work is being leveraged in another working group on DNS Service Discovery.
Now that this draft is moving forward, final implementations can begin to 
emergy. 

Personnel:   Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski, Area Director is Warren Kumari

(3) The Document Shepherd did a detailed review, both for subject matter 
as well as editorial issues.  The document is of high quality, which
is also in part due to the iterations the working group committed to this 
document.

(4) The Shepherd has no concerns about the depth of breath of the reviews.

(5) The document has had broad DNS review, but there is no feeling additional 
reviews are mandatory (though all are welcome).

(6) The Shepherd has no concerns. 

(7) There are no IPR disclosures and this has been confirmed. 

(8)  No IPR disclosures. 

(9) There is solid working group consensus behind this document. 

(10) No appeals have been threatened.

(11) Nits:  The Document references older versions of other documents. The 
authors are planning to update this as it moves forward. 

  == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_
     of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it
     should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC1035, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7766, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.


(12) N/A

(13) All references within this document have been identified as
either normative or informative.

(14) There are no normative references which are not ready.

(15) There are no downward normative references. 

(16) This RFC will update 1035 and 7766, and they are listed on the Title page.
They are *not* listed in the Abstract, which the authors will address.


(17)  The IANA considerations section has been reviewed and are consistent. 
New registries are clearly identified and they contain initial contents, and 
allocations procedures. 

(18) The "DSO Type Code Registry" requires Expert Review to register new DS0 
Type Codes in the "Unassigned" range.  This can be handled by the current
DNS Expert Review process. 
Back