Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-dnssd-push-19

(1) Document reviewed: draft-ietf-dnssd-push-12
    This document is Standards Track.

(2)

Technical Summary

   The Domain Name System (DNS) was designed to return matching records
   efficiently for queries for data that is relatively static.  When
   those records change frequently, DNS is still efficient at returning
   the updated results when polled, as long as the polling rate is not
   too high.  But there exists no mechanism for a client to be
   asynchronously notified when these changes occur.  This document
   defines a mechanism for a client to be notified of such changes to
   DNS records, called DNS Push Notifications.


Working Group Summary

  The significant thing was the initial version of the draft had both protocols
  and process.  The decision was made after discussion with DNSOP, to split
  this work into a separate draft and the protocol work into
  draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal, which is now RFC8490.

Document Quality

  The documents is of good quality.  There currently is some non-published
  implementations.  The reviews on this document were vigorous and thorough.

Personnel:

  Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski
  Area Director is Terry Manderson

(3) The Document Shepherd did a through review looking for editorial issues, as
well as technical issues.

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

(5) This document was reviewed by DNSOP working group, as there is some overlap
in working group participants.  The major outcome was to split the document into
two drafts, this one and the ietf-dnsop-session-signaling draft which is now RFC8490.

 (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.

(7)  The Authors have confirmed that any and all IPR disclosures have
    been filed, which are currently none.

(8) There are No IPR disclosures on this document


(9) WG Consensus of this document is solid.

(10)  No Appeals have been filed and no extreme discontent has been registered.


(11) With version -19, there are no outdated references in this document.


(12) No formal reviews needed

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

(14) With version -19, there are no longer unpublished normative drafts.


(15) With version -19, there are no longer downward normative references in this document.



(16) Publication of this document will not change the status of any RFCs.


(17) the IANA section is consistent

(18) No new IANA registries.

(19) No Automated checks other than NITs
Back