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 1 November 2019.
(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. The draft specifies the use of QUIC for transporting DNS
exchanges between parties. The document specifies this status in its header.
(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:
This document describes the use of QUIC to provide transport privacy for DNS.
The encryption provided by QUIC has similar properties to that provided by TLS,
while QUIC transport eliminates the head-of-line blocking issues inherent with
TCP and provides more efficient packet loss recovery than UDP. DNS over QUIC
(DoQ) has privacy properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in
RFC7858, and latency characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP.
Working Group Summary:
There is consensus in the DPRIVE WG for publishing this specification.
Additionally, valuable feedback was received from the QUIC WG as they were
copied on the start of the WG Last Call.
Document Quality:
This document has undergone review from both DNS experts (implementors and
operators) and QUIC experts. The feedback from the QUIC WG was valuable in
identifying areas of the specification in need of additional detail.
Personnel:
Brian Haberman is the document shepherd. Éric Vyncke is the responsible Area
Director.
(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.
The document shepherd reviewed both the WGLC version (-05) and the latest
version (-07). The review entailed both a critical review of the specification
for completeness as well as a review to determine if all WGLC comments were
addressed. The current version (-07) does include text related to operating the
protocol over UDP port 853, which is currently being reviewed for early
allocation via IANA.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
The document was reviewed by members of the QUIC WG, which is broader
perspective needed for this specification.
(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.
The shepherd does not have any concerns with this document.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(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?
The shepherd would categorize the consensus as being strong amongst the small
(~10), but vocal, WG participants interested in the technology. The WG does
have a history of raising concerns with work it sees as problematic and that
type of resistance has not appeared with respect to this specification.
(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.
- The 2119 boilerplate check in id-nits does not seem to recognize the use of
BCP 14 / RFC 8174. - The document contains a normative down-reference to RFC
8094. The reference can be moved to the Informative reference section as it is
simply identifying the specification associated with UDP port 853. - The
document contains a normative down-reference to RFC 8467. The WG is requesting
a waiver for this down-ref as it is key to implementation guidance for the
specification related to EDNS(0) padding.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
(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?
This document has a normative reference to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis. This
document is actively being worked on in the DNSOP WG.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
Yes. As noted earlier, the WG is requesting a down-ref waiver for RFC 8467. We
could also, potentially, attempt to re-write the text related to RFC 8467 to
make it an Informative reference. Interested in guidance.
(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 8126).
The IANA Considerations section is complete and consistent with the body of the
document. This document is making a request to associate UDP port 853 with
DNS-over-QUIC. We are awaiting a response on an early allocation request for
the port from IANA.
(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.
The document creates a new registry entitled "DNS over QUIC Error Codes
Registry", which is split into three ranges of assignment. One of those ranges
is for provisional registrations and requires Expert Review. The goal of this
range is to facilitate early experimentation/testing with the ability to
transition the provisional value to a permanent one when a specification is
published as an RFC. As a starting point, it is suggested that the document
authors and the WG chairs be the initial set of expert reviewers.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
N/A