Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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

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
including the extended WGLC
( 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

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:
* Tiru: *

Also, as the draft updates a pre-RFC5378 work (RFC4014), the authors of that
RFC were contacted
( and
a formal approval was received from Ralph Droms

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][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

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

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

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.


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?


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.