(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?
This document is requesting Experimental status. This status is appropriate
given that it describes several EDNS(0) padding strategies that may be
applicable for encrypted DNS traffic and extensive experimentation is needed
to determine which strategy is most applicable.
(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:
RFC 7830 specifies the EDNS(0) 'Padding' option, but does not specify
the actual padding length for specific applications. This memo lists
the possible options ("Padding Policies"), discusses implications of
each of these options, and provides a recommended (experimental)
option.
Working Group Summary:
The WG process for this document was smooth and well-supported. There
have been involved discussions, but the consensus for the final content
of this document is strong.
Document Quality:
The document is driven by empirical research carried out by Daniel K.
Gillmor to determine potential padding strategies for encrypted DNS
traffic. Several WG participants have indicated a desire to begin
experimentation with the recommended padding strategy.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd is Brian Haberman.
Responsible Area Director is Terry Manderson.
(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 all versions of the document as they were
published. The review focused on the clarity of the description of each
potential padding strategy and the completeness of the analysis of each
strategy.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There were several in-depth reviews posted to the mailing list and the
document shepherd is happy with those reviews.
(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.
(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 from the document shepherd.
There are two pending edits that will be incorporated into the document
at the next revision:
1. Section 4.3 : "This policy requires a good source of (pseudo) which"
should be "This policy requires a good source of (pseudo) randomness
which"
2. Section 5 : "research performed by Daniel K. Gillmor [dkg-padding-ndss]"
can be re-worded as "research described in [dkg-padding-ndss]"
(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?
This document represents a strong consensus within the WG.
(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.
N/A.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB 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?
One normative reference is to an external document published on an
external website (dns.cmrg.net).
(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).
N/A.
(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.
None.
(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.
N/A.