(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?
=> The requested RFC is “Informational" as the document does not describe a new
protocol nor update an existing one. The type of RFC is indicated in the title
page header. The WG has chosen to publish the document as Informational
standard since it does not introduce any new protocol. It is explicitly stated
in the document that further studies are required before a mature solution can
be implemented
(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:
=> The document describes some of the protocols that reveal hostnames
today and sketches another possible remedy, which is to replace static
hostnames by frequently changing randomized values
Working Group Summary:
=> The document has been approved for adoption as WG draft by the intarea WG.
It has been reviewed by a small number of people who are active in the intarea
WG and authors updated the document accordingly. The document has been subject
for a short email discussion. There was positive consensus and no dissent and
no point of controversy. The draft has not been reviewed by any directorate
nor review teams nor from other SDOs.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
=> Am not aware of any implementation
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the
specification?
=> Am not aware of any such plans
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the
document had no substantive issues?
=> There was no point of controversy in any reviews
If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?
=> Not applicable
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
=> Document Shepherd: Wassim Haddad
Responsible Area Director: Suresh Krishnan
(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.
=> Document Shepherd did a thorough review of the document and
concluded that the document is ready for publication. Therefore,
the document is forwarded to IESG for approval for publication as
Informational RFC.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
=> Document Shepherd believes that the document is ready for
publication
(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.
=> Document Shepherd believes the document does not need such review
(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.
=> Document Shepherd has no issues with the 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. Each author has 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
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
=> No IPR disclosure has been filed.
(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 draft received a weak positive consensus and no dissent and
no point of controversy from anyone
(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 threats were issued as there was no dissent nor point of
controversy
(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
=> Document Shepherd found no nits in the document except that some
references need to be updated:
- Outdated reference: draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile has been
published as RFC 7844
- Outdated reference: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy has been
published as RFC 7819 - Outdated reference:
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy has been published as RFC 7824
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
=> The document does not require reviews related to MIB
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
=> All references within the document have been identified as
informative
(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?
=> The document cites only informational references
(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.
=> There are no downward normative reference(s)
(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.
=> The document does not change the status of any existing RFC
(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).
=> The document does not require assistance nor IANA consideration
(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.
=> Not applicable
(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.
=> Document shepherd has reviewed all sections. No formal language