The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-04-20):

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: dns-privacy@ietf.org, dprive-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-09.txt> (DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG (dprive) to
consider the following document: - 'DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS'
  <draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-09.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-04-20. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  DNS zone transfers are transmitted in clear text, which gives
  attackers the opportunity to collect the content of a zone by
  eavesdropping on network connections.  The DNS Transaction Signature
  (TSIG) mechanism is specified to restrict direct zone transfer to
  authorized clients only, but it does not add confidentiality.  This
  document specifies the use of TLS, rather than clear text, to prevent
  zone content collection via passive monitoring of zone transfers:
  XFR-over-TLS (XoT).  Additionally, this specification updates
  RFC1995, RFC5936 and RFC7766.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc6973: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (Informational - Internet Architecture Board (IAB))
    draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis: DNS Privacy Considerations (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc7626: DNS Privacy Considerations (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

(1) RFC is Standards Track, and this is the correct RFC type.

(2)

Technical Summary:

DNS zone transfers are transmitted in clear text, which gives
attackers the opportunity to collect the content of a zone by
eavesdropping on network connections.  The DNS Transaction Signature
(TSIG) mechanism is specified to restrict direct zone transfer to
authorized clients only, but it does not add confidentiality.  This
document specifies the use of TLS, rather than clear text, to prevent
zone content collection via passive monitoring of zone transfers:
XFR-over-TLS (XoT).  Additionally, this specification updates
RFC1995, RFC5936 and RFC7766.


Working Group Summary:

There were several discussions during the working group process,
but they were all resolved.

Document Quality:

The document was the result of different interpertations of the original
RFC that cause some implementation issues.  Section 14 points out there are
several implementations that interact successfully.


Personnel:

Document Shepherd:  Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director: Éric Vyncke


(3)  The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document
for content as well as simple editorial checks (spelling/grammar).
The shepherd feels the document is ready for publication.

(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns on the depth or breadth
of the reviews.

(5) There is no need for broader review.

(6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd.

(7) No IPR disclosures

(8) There is no IPR

(9) The WG Consensus on this document is very solid.

(10) There has been no appeals.

(11) All nits found have been addressed by the authors.

(12) No formal review needed

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

(14) normative references draft-vcelak-nsec5 has expired and is a normative reference.


(15) There are two downward normative references: RFC6973 and RFC7626.
Both documents have been used as a downward reference previously.

(16) This document will update RFC1995, RFC5936 and RFC7766, and it is in the abstract and the
introduction.

(17) N/A

(18) N/A

(19) N/A

(20) No Yang Necessary

(1) RFC is Standards Track, and this is the correct RFC type.

(2)

Technical Summary:

DNS zone transfers are transmitted in clear text, which gives
attackers the opportunity to collect the content of a zone by
eavesdropping on network connections.  The DNS Transaction Signature
(TSIG) mechanism is specified to restrict direct zone transfer to
authorized clients only, but it does not add confidentiality.  This
document specifies the use of TLS, rather than clear text, to prevent
zone content collection via passive monitoring of zone transfers:
XFR-over-TLS (XoT).  Additionally, this specification updates
RFC1995, RFC5936 and RFC7766.


Working Group Summary:

There were several discussions during the working group process,
but they were all resolved.

Document Quality:

The document was the result of different interpertations of the original
RFC that cause some implementation issues.  Section 14 points out there are
several implementations that interact successfully.


Personnel:

Document Shepherd:  Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director: Éric Vyncke


(3)  The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document
for content as well as simple editorial checks (spelling/grammar).
The shepherd feels the document is ready for publication.

(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns on the depth or breadth
of the reviews.

(5) There is no need for broader review.

(6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd.

(7) No IPR disclosures

(8) There is no IPR

(9) The WG Consensus on this document is very solid.

(10) There has been no appeals.

(11) All nits found have been addressed by the authors.

(12) No formal review needed

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

(14) normative references draft-vcelak-nsec5 has expired and is a normative reference.


(15) There are two downward normative references: RFC6973 and RFC7626.
Both documents have been used as a downward reference previously.

(16) This document will update RFC1995, RFC5936 and RFC7766, and it is in the abstract and the
introduction.

(17) N/A

(18) N/A

(19) N/A

(20) No Yang Necessary