This is the document shepherd's writeup for:
Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS
(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 intended status is standards track with the label of propsed
(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:
48-bit Extended Unique Identifiers (EUI-48) and 64-bit Extended Unique
Identifiers (EUI-64) are address formats specified by the IEEE for use
in various layer-2 networks, e.g. ethernet.
This document defines two new DNS resource record types, EUI48 and
EUI64, for encoding ethernet addresses in the DNS.
Working Group Summary
This document was brought to discussed and revised in reponse to
critical review in dnsext. The working group is closing down so it not
an avenue for adoption.
The document has recieved signficant review. It was not entirely
without controversy. The Last call should demonstrate that the results
are satisfactory or not.
Joel Jaeggli is the sponsoring AD and the author of the shepherd's
(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 shepherd belives that this version (03) is ready for IETF last
call and IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Some dicussion on the dnsext mailing list indicates that there are
participants that would propose alternative methods for the expression
of eui-48 and eui-64 in an RR. At this point the resource records have
been assigned so while alternatives are fine, documentation of the
usage of the assigned RR's has some utility.
(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
Document review from the vanatage point of DNS impact, scope of use of
the RR has been undertaken. The applications envisioned are largely
tied to provisioning systems. A standardized representation suppalants
a patchwork of methods involving text record representations.
(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 interested
community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The sponsoring AD suggested changes in response to feedback solicited
on the dnsext list. The draft 03 version has the AD/Sheperhards
(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 author claims to have no IPR. No claims have been presented or
filed as a result of mailing list dicussion of the draft.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
The Shepherd is not aware of any IPR claims related to this document.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?
It is the opinion of the shephard that IETF last call will satisfy the
question of general consensus. Once the agruement in favor of this
draft was refined and the document revised with a usecase, and
security considerations addressing the scope, feedback has been
(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.)
The AD does not belive that an appeal is likely. There are potentially
alternative methods for encoding the data in a resource record that
were discussed. It is likely that will come up in last calll.
(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.
There are 4 reported reference related nits. Two are due to the
inclusion of the IANA RR template in the appendix, these are spurious.
There are two external normative references to the IEEE guidelines for
EUI48 and EUI64 usage (these reported as possible downrefs).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal require criteria are required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
References are correctly identified.
(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?
There are two external normative refences. These are stable and
compliant with 2026 7.1.1
(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 not.
(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 interested community considers it
No RFCs are updated or obsoleted by this document.
(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
The IANA considerations section is accurate. IANA registry RRType
values have already been assigned according to the policy of the
(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.
No new registries are created.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No formal language is present in the document.