(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard. This is indicated in the header, and is appropriate for the
document.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
Classic mDNS and DNS-SD only operate across the scope of a single link. There
is thus a challenge in service discovery for multi-link networks, from home
networks through to large enterprises or campuses. This document specifies a
type of proxy called a "Multicast Discovery Proxy" (or just "Discovery Proxy")
that uses Multicast DNS to discover Multicast DNS records on its local link,
and makes corresponding DNS records visible in the Unicast DNS namespace. Host
queries are forwarded to proxies on remote links which perform multicast
resolution of those queries, returning unicast answers. Hosts may use LLQ or
DNS Push for queries, to subscribe to DNS updates to obtain timely information.
Other optimisations are described in other WG documents.
Working Group Summary:
The draft moved fairly smoothly through various iterations. Until late in the
process it was referred to the Hybrid Proxy, hence the draft file name, but it
was then renamed the Discovery Proxy to allow the potential for a future
Advertising Proxy to be defined with a clear, distinct purpose.
Document Quality:
The appendix describes existing implementation status, which includes at least
three (part) implementations. There is interest amongst multiple vendors to
take the work forward, beyond just Apple. There has been a good number of
reviews performed on the document over the past year or so, and there has been
close cooperation with the DNSOP WG through Tim and Suzanne on the DNS Push and
DNS Session Signal drafts that the Proxy can benefit from.
Personnel:
Tim Chown is the document shepherd (and co-chair of the WG), and Terry
Manderson is the Responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
As WG chair I have followed the draft through its development, and am thus
familiar with it. I have read the final version of the document and am
satisfied that it is ready for publication.
The -07 version fixed the one remaining nit, which was the reference to “.home”
in the document, which was replaced with “.home.arpa”.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No. The document has been reviewed by a number of experienced IETF contributors
through its development.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No. The DNS Push and related DNS Session Signalling drafts have been produced
collaboratively with the DNSOP WG.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns. The document is perhaps a little hard to read at first for those
not familiar with certain aspects of DNS-SD. Given the IETF documents can now
include higher quality diagrams, an overview diagram of the querying hosts,
authoritative name servers, proxies and services in links, with indicated DNS
delegations, might be helpful for a new reader. But this is not required.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, but see below.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes. The disclosure was https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/, but it is
reported as “removed at the submitter’s request”. This was done in error (when
removing the errant disclosure on the DNS-SD Requirements draft). Apple are in
the process of having the disclosure restored; we expect this to be resolved
soon, and will report the resolution to the WG to ensure the WG supports the
resolution.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is strong consensus to publish the document, as verified in the IETF97
meeting (along with the Discovery Proxy name change). The document probably
hasn’t been that widely read, but there have been a good number of relatively
expert reviews undertaken.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
There is a small number of minor nits (3 warnings and 0 comments). I’m not
convinced that the warnings on non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs and
non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses are real. The outdated draft reference
(for draft-ietf-homenet-dot-07) can easily be fixed in the final version.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
Yes, DNS Push - draft-ietf-dnssd-push-12 - which is being submitted to the IESG
very soon (in shepherd write-up stage with Tim Wickinski). DNS Push in turn has
a dependency on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03, which is being progressed
in the DNSOP WG. The -03 version was published this week. The DNSOP chairs are
determining whether to continue to progress the session signal work ‘as is’, in
which case we might expect publication soon, or whether a more board review of
the approach is required, which would add a not insignificant delay. Ideally
all three documents would be published together.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
There are no IANA considerations for this document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
Not applicable.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Not applicable.