ENUM Requirement for EDNS0 Support
draft-ietf-enum-edns0-00
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
00 | (System) | Notify list changed from enum-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2010-09-28
|
00 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-09-28
|
00 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-09-28
|
00 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-09-28
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2010-09-27
|
00 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State changed to Dead from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2010-04-16
|
00 | Gonzalo Camarillo | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2010-04-16
|
00 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Note field has been cleared by Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2010-04-15
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Responsible AD has been changed to Gonzalo Camarillo from Cullen Jennings |
|
2010-02-24
|
00 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-11-18
|
00 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-05-24
|
00 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-04-01
|
00 | Cullen Jennings | Responsible AD has been changed to Cullen Jennings from Jon Peterson |
|
2008-11-05
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC's Statement about IPR related to RFC 3953, RFC 4415, RFC 4759, RFC 4769 … |
|
|
2007-04-13
|
00 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Jon Peterson |
|
2006-11-05
|
00 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson |
|
2006-09-27
|
00 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is … PROTO Write-up 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? *Yes the document has been reviewed by the WG chairs. 2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? *Yes, the document was reviewed by WG members as well as other persons and representatives from the DNSOP WG. 3. Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? *There are no concerns about depth or breadth of the reviews. 4. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? *No. The authors recognise that the document will be scrutinised by the DNS Directortate. 5. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. *No. 6. 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? *Consensus on this document is complete within the WG. The WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document. 7. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. *No, there are no known threats to appeal or discontent. 8. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID Checklist items ? *Yes. 9. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) **References have been properly split and there are no normative references to IDs. 10. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard, Informational?) *The intended status is BCP. 11. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: o Technical Summary o Working Group Summary o Protocol Quality Technical Summary (Same as Abstract): Support for EDNS0 (Extension Mechanisms for DNS) is mandated in this document for DNS entities querying for or serving NAPTR records. In general those entities will be supporting ENUM resolution. This requirement is needed because DNS responses to ENUM-related queries generally return large RRSets. Without EDNS0 support these lookups would result in truncated responses and repeated queries over TCP transport. That has a severe impact on DNS server load and on the latency of those queries. This document adds an operational requirement to use of the protocol standardised in RFC 3761. Working Group Summary: No controversial issues with this document. Protocol Quality: * Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Most DNS implementations already support EDNS0. * Is this protocol used in practice? Yes. See above. The objective of this document is to ensure that new ENUM-aware applications will use EDNS0 by default. * Have a significant number of vendors indicated they plan to implement the specification? Most DNS server software already supports EDNS0 and tries to use this by default. Vendors will not provide EDNS0 support in ENUM-aware applications unless there is an IETF document which mandates this. * Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review (i.e., that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues)? Alexander Mayrhofer, Peter Koch and Lars-Johan Liman had a thorough review and provided feedback which has been incorporated into the document. No substantive issues remain. NITS review by Alexander Mayrhofer |
|
2006-09-27
|
00 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
|
2006-09-06
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-enum-edns0-00.txt |