Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08

(1) RFC is Standards Track, and this is the correct RFC type.

(2)

Technical Summary:

This document specifies the "SVCB" and "HTTPS" DNS resource record
(RR) types to facilitate the lookup of information needed to make
connections to network services, such as for HTTPS origins.  SVCB
records allow a service to be provided from multiple alternative
endpoints, each with associated parameters (such as transport
protocol configuration and keys for encrypting the TLS ClientHello).
They also enable aliasing of apex domains, which is not possible with
CNAME.  The HTTPS RR is a variation of SVCB for HTTPS and HTTP
origins.  By providing more information to the client before it
attempts to establish a connection, these records offer potential
benefits to both performance and privacy.


Working Group Summary:

Working group consensus was strong, though it was rough in spots. During WGLC, discussions came up about the syntax of the records.  The issues raised about the syntax was discussed in depth, and the issues raised were very much the rare exception rather than the rule. 

Syntax Discussion: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fePoVb6vhryjzaMFSx_lzUcqLPk/

WGLC thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SXnlsE1B8gmlDjn4HtOo1lwtqAI/

Document Quality:

While these are updates to existing standards, there is an implementation section where several versions of open source software has implemented this.

Document Shepherd:  Tim Wicinski

Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari

(3)  The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document for content as well as simple editorial checks (pelling/grammar). The shepherd feels 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) The WG Consensus on this document is strong. 

(10) There has been no appeals.

(11)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
     draft-ietf-tls-esni-11

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7871

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3513
     (Obsoleted by RFC 4291)

(12) No formal review needed

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

(14) There is one normative reference for draft-ietf-tls-esni, that is not ready for advancement.

(15) There is one downward normative reference to  RFC 7871, which has one existing downward reference.

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

(17) The document shepherd confirmed the consistency and references of the IANA Considerations section are accurate.

(18) The new IANA Registry "Service Binding (SVCB) Parameter Registry" is created as a First Come First Serve, and does not require any Expert Reviews.

(19) N/A

(20) No Yang Necessary
Back