Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-17

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 24 February 2012.

(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 type of this RFC is Proposed Standard, which is listed in the title page 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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
  or introduction.

The IPsecME working group has obsoleted the IKEv1 protocol in favor of
the IKEv2 protocol many years ago. However, IKEv2 never had an option
to send one or more DNS domains from a Remote Access VPN server to the
VPN clients. IKEv1 did have that option via XAUTH/ModeCFG.

This document defines two Configuration Payload Attribute Types for
the IKEv2 protocol that add support for private DNS domains.  These
domains are intended to be resolved using DNS servers reachable
through an IPsec connection, while leaving all other DNS resolution
unchanged.  This approach of resolving a subset of domains using non-
public DNS servers is referred to as "Split DNS".

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
  rough?

The draft had no controversy. The draft has been discussed frequently on
the mailing list and a lot of comments have been provided on list by
people other than the authors, to include implementors. In addition to
mailing list discussions, the draft has been presented and discussed
during the last 3 IETF (98, 99, 100) meetings. The draft has been
supported by the participants in the room on various hums for the
specific design decisions made in the document.
  
Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? 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? 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?

The document is supported by implementors, and authors also represent a
subset of implementors. Interoperability of the DNS domain has been
confirmed by at least three independent implementations. DNSSEC TA
support has not seen an implementation or interoperability test, but
the format is sufficiently simple that no one is worried.
  
Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

The Document Shepherd is David Waltermire. The responsible Area
Director is Eric Rescorla. 
  
(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 has completely reviewed this draft to include
review of idnits, the references, and IANA considerations sections. No
issues have been found. The document is ready for publication.
   
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document had a significant number of reviews/comments during the
multiple draft iterations. The document Shepherd believes the document
has been carefully reviewed.

(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.

The document Shepherd has no issue 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.

The authors confirm there is no IPR disclosure needed. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

There is no related IPR disclosures for this document, or the prior document, RFC4307.

(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 document has been heavily discussed and reviewed by the WG, and has
been presented during the IETF meetings. There has been a significant
number of comments on the draft, which have been sufficiently addressed
by the authors. The document represents the strong consensus of 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No error is raised. 

 == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
     a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

     (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
     ID-Checklist requires).

This is caused by the use of RFC8174 boilerplate and should be ignored.
  
(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 need external formal reviews.
 
(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?

No. 

(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).

The IANA section adds two new attribute types to the IANA "IKEv2
Configuration Payload Attribute Types" registry. Both of these
entries have been requested for early assignment, have passed expert
review, and already appear in the registry.

(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.

There is no need to proceed to further checks.
Back