(1) Document is requested as Best Current Practice. This is the proper RFC type.
This document presents operational, policy and security
considerations for DNS recursive resolver operators who choose to
offer DNS Privacy services. With these recommendations, the operator
can make deliberate decisions regarding which services to provide,
and how the decisions and alternatives impact the privacy of users.
Working Group Summary:
Working Group process was not controversial or rough.
Document quality is very solid and has been through several reviews.
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director: Éric Vyncke
(3) The Document Shepherd did an extensive review of the document, and
feel it is ready for publication.
(4) Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
(5) Document does not need any broader review (outside of the normal area
(6) Document Shepherd has no concerns with this document.
(7) No IPR Disclosures
(8) No IPR
(9) WG consensus is behind this document
(10) No Appeals
(11) There are several downward Normative References, which are discussed
in 15. There is one additional nit where the document mentions the
obsoleted RFC5077 and not the updated RFC8446. This is described in the
text referencing TLS and TLS1.2
'such as TLS session resumption [RFC5077] with TLS 1.2, section 2.2 of RFC8446’
(12) No formal review needed
(13) All references HAVE been identified as either normative or
(14) There are no normative references that are not ready for advancement
(15) There are five downward normative references in this document.
As this is a BCP, it is describing best current practices which
include Informational and Experimental documents. These references are:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 8467
** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 7816
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6973
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7871
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8404
(16) Publication will not change the status of existing RFCS.
(17) No IANA Considerations
(18) No IANA Registries
(19) No automated checks
(20) No YANG