RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services
draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-12

[Ballot comment]
Firstly, thank you to the authors for the document. Also much thanks to Ralf Weber for reviewing and updating his DNSDIR review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10-dnsdir-telechat-weber-2023-03-12/), and the authors for addressing the nits.

Like Eric I wonder what should happen with a RADIUS client receiving a non-permitted DHCP option - but perhaps this is already well known and understood?

[Ballot comment]
      This document targets deployments where a trusted relationship is in place between
      the RADIUS client and server with communication optionally secured by IPsec or
      Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC6614].

I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say.

Does table 7 really clarify the sentences used earlier that say exactly the same thing but more compact?

Why "Expert Review" and not "Specification Required" or "RFC Required" ?


    Registration requests are to be sent to radius-dhcp-review@ietf.org

I thought we didn't put these emails in the documents anymore? But I guess IANA will get back to you on that.

NITS:

    As a reminder,

I would remove this part of the text.

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. Once the trivial DISCUSS is addressed, I will be happy to ballot a YES.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Bernie Volz for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus even if the justification of the intended status is rather vague.

Other thanks to Tatuya Jinmei, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2023-03-09/ (and I have read Med's replies and resolution of the issues)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### What to do with non-permitted DHCP option ?

Sections 3.1 and 3.2 contain text like `Permitted DHCPv6 options in the DHCPv6-Options Attribute are maintained by IANA in the registry created in Section 8.4.1.` but I was unable to find anywhere in the document what is the expected behaviour of a RADIUS client receiving a non-permitted DHCP option ? At the bare minimum, I would expect the I-D to mention "non-permitted DHCP options MUST silently be ignored by the RADIUS client"

Or did I fail to find a similar statement in the text ?

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS

### Abstract

Should the sentence `Even if the specification was initially motivated by the configuration of encrypted DNS resolvers,` be removed from the abstract ? It adds nothing but confusion.

### Section 3

Should the whole paragraph starting with `RADIUS servers have conventionally tolerated the input of arbitrary data via the "string" data type (Section 3.5 of [RFC8044])... ` rather be in the security (or operational) considerations section ?

### Section 3.1

Should normative language be used in `However, the server is not required to honor such a preference.`? I.e., the rest of the paragraph uses normative language.

### Section 4

Should 'DHCP relay' be mentioned in the section title ? It would of course be very long then but clearer for the reader (esp in the ToC)

## NITS

### Section 3.2

Suggest to use the same layout as in section 3.1 for the "value" field.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete.

First, in the RADIUS Attribute Types registry on the RADIUS Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types/

two, new registrations will be made in the extended space as follows:

Value: 245.[ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: DHCPv6-Options
Data Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 245.[ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: DHCPv4-Options
Data Type: string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the RADIUS Attributes Permitted in DHCPv6 RADIUS Option registry on the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Type Code: 245.[ TBD-at-Registration ]
Attribute: DHCPv6-Options
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, a new registry will be created called the RADIUS Attributes Permitted in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option registry. The new registry will be created on the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/

The new registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined by RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type
Code Attribute Reference
---------+-----------------+--------------
1 User-Name [RFC2865]
6 Service-Type [RFC2865]
26 Vendor-Specific [RFC2865]
27 Session-Timeout [RFC2865]
88 Framed-Pool [RFC2869]
100 Framed-IPv6-Pool [RFC3162]
245.TBA2 DHCPv4-Options [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, a new registry will be created called the DHCPv6 Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv6-Options Attribute registry. The new registry will be created on the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/

The new registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined by RFC8126. There is a single, initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Value: 144
Description: OPTION_V6_DNR
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fifth, a new registry will be created called the DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute registry. The new registry will be created on the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/

The new registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined by RFC8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Value: 162
Description: OPTION_V4_DNR
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-02-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bevolz@gmail.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RADIUS Extensions for DHCP Configured Services) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'RADIUS
Extensions for DHCP Configured Services'
  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 2023-02-23. 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


  This document specifies two new Remote Authentication Dial-In User
  Service (RADIUS) attributes that carry DHCP options.  Even if the
  specification was initially motivated by the configuration of
  encrypted DNS resolvers, the specification is generic and can be
  applicable to any service that relies upon DHCP.  Both DHCPv4 and
  DHCPv6 configured services are covered.

  Also, this document updates RFC 4014 by relaxing a constraint on
  permitted RADIUS Attributes in the RADIUS Attributes DHCP suboption.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns/



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

Shepherd document for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07, by Bernie Volz on
December 5, 2022.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Many individuals supported and commented on this work, both in the opsawg and dhc wg. Therefore, I would say the document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Mostly it was working out the details and documenting them clearly, as the general ideas behind the document basically expanded on earlier work, RFC 4014 and RFC 7037.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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, not to my knowledge.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This extends concepts orginally introduced in RFC 4014 and RFC 7037 and hence there should not be any implementation difficulties.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, with the DHC, ADD, and RADEXT wgs which have been involved and commented on the document during its development and reviews.

For example, the WGLC was shared with ADD and RADEXT (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7QhwkLnu8g7iC4XoVYPHVczAj1g/), including the extended WGLC (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/xsAGfoUjzBv3Vm2RJqMqk25NM8o/). The document was updated to address received comments.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Only DHCPv6 expert review for the options which was done by the assigned experts. (I am one of those experts and also reviewed the DHCPv4 options.)

Reviews of other directorates and experts were requested (e.g., DNS and OPS DIR) but were not done. It would be good to get these reviews during IETF LC.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I have reviewed the document several times and feel it is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

A quick review of the list doesn’t point out any areas that need further consideration. It looks like the key areas have been covered during the reviews.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is the appropriate type for this document and is what is in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. See the following:
Med: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_geYEX1i26cs_foeUNXtjK8rCb4/
* Tiru: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ttW7-NbOs_v2pB6G8J7EHhz62qs/
* Alan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QM4GB_q2sBiRHUmC2RVGc_0aKrw/

Also, as the draft updates a pre-RFC5378 work (RFC4014), the authors of that RFC were contacted (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ZJlLZUewzeLFtg0zT9HrNSsfdTI/) and a formal approval was received from Ralph Droms (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/xpfuxAq7vraxXD0hRdczxxt6mPs/).

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes; just 3 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some nits reported related to quoting sections of RFC 4014. These nits are not “real” issues. And, see #12 earlier regarding the pre-RFC5378 work warning.

This document does not have a privacy considerations section. I don’t think that this is an issue as usage of this document is primarily used with an administrative domain and the data being exchanged here itself does not directly identify a user or individual. The privacy considerations of using DHCP and RADIUS / DIAMETER apply and cover this work.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The only document that perhaps should be moved to Normative is RFC 7037, but this is not completed clear as mostly a cursory understanding of RFC 7037 is needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All are IETF references and thus freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document updates RFC4014 and the metadata reflects this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

I reviewed this material carefully and cross checked the IANA pages.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Yes, new sub-registries are created:

Section 8.3 creates a "RADIUS Attributes Permitted in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

Section 8.4.1 creates a “DHCPv6 Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv6-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry [DHCP-RADIUS].

Section 8.4.2 creates a "DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

These are all updated by expert review with guidelines given in Section 8.4.3.

Possible experts include the authors of the document, Mohamed Boucadair, Tirumaleswar Reddy, and Alan DeKok.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Shepherd document for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07, by Bernie Volz on
December 5, 2022.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Many individuals supported and commented on this work, both in the opsawg and dhc wg. Therefore, I would say the document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Mostly it was working out the details and documenting them clearly, as the general ideas behind the document basically expanded on earlier work, RFC 4014 and RFC 7037.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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, not to my knowledge.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This extends concepts orginally introduced in RFC 4014 and RFC 7037 and hence there should not be any implementation difficulties.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, with the DHC, ADD, and RADEXT wgs which have been involved and commented on the document during its development and reviews.

For example, the WGLC was shared with ADD and RADEXT (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7QhwkLnu8g7iC4XoVYPHVczAj1g/), including the extended WGLC (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/xsAGfoUjzBv3Vm2RJqMqk25NM8o/). The document was updated to address received comments.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Only DHCPv6 expert review for the options which was done by the assigned experts. (I am one of those experts and also reviewed the DHCPv4 options.)

Reviews of other directorates and experts were requested (e.g., DNS and OPS DIR) but were not done. It would be good to get these reviews during IETF LC.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I have reviewed the document several times and feel it is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

A quick review of the list doesn’t point out any areas that need further consideration. It looks like the key areas have been covered during the reviews.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is the appropriate type for this document and is what is in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. See the following:
Med: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_geYEX1i26cs_foeUNXtjK8rCb4/
* Tiru: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ttW7-NbOs_v2pB6G8J7EHhz62qs/
* Alan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QM4GB_q2sBiRHUmC2RVGc_0aKrw/

Also, as the draft updates a pre-RFC5378 work (RFC4014), the authors of that RFC were contacted (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ZJlLZUewzeLFtg0zT9HrNSsfdTI/) and a formal approval was received from Ralph Droms (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/xpfuxAq7vraxXD0hRdczxxt6mPs/).

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes; just 3 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some nits reported related to quoting sections of RFC 4014. These nits are not “real” issues. And, see #12 earlier regarding the pre-RFC5378 work warning.

This document does not have a privacy considerations section. I don’t think that this is an issue as usage of this document is primarily used with an administrative domain and the data being exchanged here itself does not directly identify a user or individual. The privacy considerations of using DHCP and RADIUS / DIAMETER apply and cover this work.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The only document that perhaps should be moved to Normative is RFC 7037, but this is not completed clear as mostly a cursory understanding of RFC 7037 is needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All are IETF references and thus freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document updates RFC4014 and the metadata reflects this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

I reviewed this material carefully and cross checked the IANA pages.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Yes, new sub-registries are created:

Section 8.3 creates a "RADIUS Attributes Permitted in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

Section 8.4.1 creates a “DHCPv6 Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv6-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry [DHCP-RADIUS].

Section 8.4.2 creates a "DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

These are all updated by expert review with guidelines given in Section 8.4.3.

Possible experts include the authors of the document, Mohamed Boucadair, Tirumaleswar Reddy, and Alan DeKok.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Shepherd document for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07, by Bernie Volz on
December 5, 2022.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Many individuals supported and commented on this work, both in the opsawg and dhc wg. Therefore, I would say the document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Mostly it was working out the details and documenting them clearly, as the general ideas behind the document basically expanded on earlier work, RFC 4014 and RFC 7037.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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, not to my knowledge.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This extends concepts orginally introduced in RFC 4014 and RFC 7037 and hence there should not be any implementation difficulties.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, with the DHC, ADD, and RADEXT wgs which have been involved and commented on the document during its development and reviews.

For example, the WGLC was shared with ADD and RADEXT (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7QhwkLnu8g7iC4XoVYPHVczAj1g/), including the extended WGLC (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/xsAGfoUjzBv3Vm2RJqMqk25NM8o/). The document was updated to address received comments.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Only DHCPv6 expert review for the options which was done by the assigned experts. (I am one of those experts and also reviewed the DHCPv4 options.)

Reviews of other directorates and experts were requested (e.g., DNS and OPS DIR) but were not done. It would be good to get these reviews during IETF LC.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I have reviewed the document several times and feel it is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

A quick review of the list doesn’t point out any areas that need further consideration. It looks like the key areas have been covered during the reviews.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is the appropriate type for this document and is what is in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. See the following:
Med: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_geYEX1i26cs_foeUNXtjK8rCb4/
* Tiru: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ttW7-NbOs_v2pB6G8J7EHhz62qs/
* Alan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QM4GB_q2sBiRHUmC2RVGc_0aKrw/

Also, as the draft updates a pre-RFC5378 work (RFC4014), the authors of that RFC were contacted (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ZJlLZUewzeLFtg0zT9HrNSsfdTI/) and a formal approval was received from Ralph Droms (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/xpfuxAq7vraxXD0hRdczxxt6mPs/).

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes; just 3 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document does not have a privacy considerations section. I don’t think that this is an issue as usage of this document is primarily used with an administrative domain and the data being exchanged here itself does not directly identify a user or individual. The privacy considerations of using DHCP and RADIUS / DIAMETER apply and cover this work.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The only document that perhaps should be moved to Normative is RFC 7037, but this is not completed clear as mostly a cursory understanding of 7037 is needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All are IETF references and thus freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document updates RFC4014 and the metadata reflects this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

I reviewed this material carefully and cross checked the IANA pages.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Yes, new sub-registries are created:

Section 8.3 creates a "RADIUS Attributes Permitted in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

Section 8.4.1 creates a “DHCPv6 Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv6-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry [DHCP-RADIUS].

Section 8.4.2 creates a "DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

These are all updated by expert review with guidelines given in Section 8.4.3.

Possible experts include the authors of the document, Mohamed Boucadair, Tirumaleswar Reddy, and Alan DeKok.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

DRAFT Shepherd document for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07, by Bernie Volz
December 2, 2022

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Many individuals supported and commented on this work, both in the opsawg and dhc wg. Therefore, I would say the document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Mostly it was working out the details and documenting them clearly, as the general ideas behind the document basically expanded on earlier work, RFC 4014 and RFC 7037.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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, not to my knowledge.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This extends concepts orginally introduced in RFC 4014 and RFC 7037 and hence there should not be any implementation difficulties.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, with the DHC, ADD, and RADEXT wgs which have been involved and commented on the document during its development and reviews.

For example, the WGLC was shared with ADD and RADEXT (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/7QhwkLnu8g7iC4XoVYPHVczAj1g/), including the extended WGLC (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/xsAGfoUjzBv3Vm2RJqMqk25NM8o/). The document was updated to address received comments.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Only DHCPv6 expert review for the options which was done by the assigned experts. (I am one of those experts and also reviewed the DHCPv4 options.)

Reviews of other directorates and experts were requested (e.g., DNS and OPS DIR) but were not done. It would be good to get these reviews during IETF LC.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I have reviewed the document several times and feel it is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

A quick review of the list doesn’t point out any areas that need further consideration. It looks like the key areas have been covered during the reviews.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is the appropriate type for this document and is what is in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. See the following:
Med: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_geYEX1i26cs_foeUNXtjK8rCb4/
* Tiru: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ttW7-NbOs_v2pB6G8J7EHhz62qs/
* Alan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QM4GB_q2sBiRHUmC2RVGc_0aKrw/

Also, as the draft updates a pre-RFC5378 work (RFC4014), the authors of that RFC were contacted (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ZJlLZUewzeLFtg0zT9HrNSsfdTI/) and a formal approval was received from Ralph Droms (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/xpfuxAq7vraxXD0hRdczxxt6mPs/).

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes; just 3 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document does not have a privacy considerations section. I don’t think that this is an issue as usage of this document is primarily used with an administrative domain and the data being exchanged here itself does not directly identify a user or individual. The privacy considerations of using DHCP and RADIUS / DIAMETER apply and cover this work.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The only document that perhaps should be moved to Normative is RFC 7037, but this is not completed clear as mostly a cursory understanding of 7037 is needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All are IETF references and thus freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document updates RFC4014 and the metadata reflects this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

I reviewed this material carefully and cross checked the IANA pages.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Yes, new sub-registries are created:

Section 8.3 creates a "RADIUS Attributes Permitted in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

Section 8.4.1 creates a “DHCPv6 Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv6-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry [DHCP-RADIUS].

Section 8.4.2 creates a "DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

These are all updated by expert review with guidelines given in Section 8.4.3.

Possible experts include the authors of the document, Mohamed Boucadair, Tirumaleswar Reddy, and Alan DeKok.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

DRAFT Shepherd document for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07, by Bernie Volz
December 2, 2022

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Many individuals supported and commented on this work, both in the opsawg and dhc wg. Therefore, I would say the document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Mostly it was working out the details and documenting them clearly, as the general ideas behind the document basically expanded on earlier work, RFC 4014 and RFC 7037.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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, not to my knowledge.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This extends concepts orginally introduced in RFC 4014 and RFC 7037 and hence there should not be any implementation difficulties.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Just with the dhc wg which has been involved and commented on the document during its development.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Only DHCPv6 expert review for the options which was done by the assigned experts.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I have reviewed the document several times and feel it is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

A quick review of the list doesn’t point out any areas that need further consideration. It looks like the key areas have been covered during the reviews.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is the appropriate type for this document and is what is in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. See the following:
Med: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_geYEX1i26cs_foeUNXtjK8rCb4/
* Tiru: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ttW7-NbOs_v2pB6G8J7EHhz62qs/
* Alan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QM4GB_q2sBiRHUmC2RVGc_0aKrw/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes; just 3 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document does not have a privacy considerations section. I don’t think that this is an issue as usage of this document is primarily used with an administrative domain and the data being exchanged here itself does not directly identify a user or individual. The privacy considerations of using DHCP and RADIUS / DIAMETER apply and cover this work.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The only document that perhaps should be moved to Normative is RFC 7037, but this is not completed clear as mostly a cursory understanding of 7037 is needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All are IETF references and thus freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document updates RFC4014 and the metadata reflects this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

I reviewed this material carefully and cross checked the IANA pages.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Yes, new sub-registries are created:

Section 8.3 creates a "RADIUS Attributes Permitted in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

Section 8.4.1 creates a “DHCPv6 Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv6-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry [DHCP-RADIUS].

Section 8.4.2 creates a "DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

These are all updated by expert review with guidelines given in Section 8.4.3.

Possible experts include the authors of the document, Mohamed Boucadair, Tirumaleswar Reddy, and Alan DeKok.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Shepherd document for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07, by Bernie Volz
December 2, 2022

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Many individuals supported and commented on this work, both in the opsawg and dhc wg. Therefore, I would say the document reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Mostly it was working out the details and documenting them clearly, as the general ideas behind the document basically expanded on earlier work, RFC 4014 and RFC 7037.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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, not to my knowledge.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This extends concepts orginally introduced in RFC 4014 and RFC 7037 and hence there should not be any implementation difficulties.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Just with the dhc wg which has been involved and commented on the document during its development.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Only DHCPv6 expert review for the options which was done by the assigned experts.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG model.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I have reviewed the document several times and feel it is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

A quick review of the list doesn’t point out any areas that need further consideration. It looks like the key areas have been covered during the reviews.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is the appropriate type for this document and is what is in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. See the following:
Med: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_geYEX1i26cs_foeUNXtjK8rCb4/
* Tiru: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ttW7-NbOs_v2pB6G8J7EHhz62qs/
* Alan: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QM4GB_q2sBiRHUmC2RVGc_0aKrw/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes; just 3 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document does not have a privacy considerations section. I don’t think that this is an issue as usage of this document is primarily used with an administrative domain and the data being exchanged here itself does not directly identify a user or individual. The privacy considerations of using DHCP and RADIUS / DIAMETER apply and cover this work.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The only document that perhaps should be moved to Normative is RFC 7037, but this is not completed clear as mostly a cursory understanding of 7037 is needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All are IETF references and thus freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document updates RFC4014 and the metadata reflects this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

I reviewed this material carefully and cross checked the IANA pages.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Yes, new sub-registries are created:

Section 8.3 creates a "RADIUS Attributes Permitted in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

Section 8.4.1 creates a “DHCPv6 Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv6-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry [DHCP-RADIUS].

Section 8.4.2 creates a "DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry [BOOTP].

These are all updated by expert review with guidelines given in Section 8.4.3.

Possible experts include the authors of the document, Mohamed Boucadair, Tirumaleswar Reddy, and Alan DeKok.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/