The Eternal Non-Existence of SINK.ARPA (and other stories)
draft-jabley-sink-arpa-03

[Ballot comment]
I also have concerns about the example that Alexey COMMENTed on.
I think the document needs to be clear about how SINK.ARPA can and
should be used.

Providing a bad example does not meet the requirement for document
clarity.

[Ballot comment]
I also have concerns about the example that Alexey COMMENTed on.
I think the document needs to be clear about how SINK.ARPA can and
should be used.
Providing a bad example does not meet the requirement for document
clarity.

[Ballot discuss]
Picking up Magnus' DISCUSS:

  Section 6, requests IAB approval of this document. How is this to be
  handled or already done?

DISCUSS related to IAB review: the IAB sent a long, informal review that raises some issues; summary, extracted from longer IAB response, is here:

  The document, as it stands, is not actionable. It is a call to do
  nothing. IANA has not currently created any records for "sink.arpa"
  or delegated that name, and this document is a call for no change
  in that respect.

  However, [...], this name *does* currently exist for many Internet
  users, [...]. [jumping to end of response] Finally, with today's
  (unfortunate) habit of many ISPs creating fake answers for NXDOMAIN
  responses, to redirect careless web browsers to that ISP's
  advertising page, for many Internet users the name "sink.arpa."
  does in fact have address records.

  This document would be more effective if it specified concrete
  protocol rules, e.g.:

  * DNS stub resolvers are required to special-case "sink.arpa." and
    return NXDOMAIN without issuing any network packets.

  * DNS server software implementations are required to special-case
    "sink.arpa." and refuse to offer positive answers for such
    queries.

  The document also combines two proposals: (a) creating an IANA
  registry for reserved DNS names, and (b) an allocation of one of
  those reserved DNS names. It might be better to split this into two
  documents.

[Ballot comment]
I also have concerns about the example that Alexey COMMENTed on.
I think the document needs to be clear about how SINK.ARPA can and
should be used.
Providing a bad example does not meet the requirement for document
clarity.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 6, requests IAB approval of this document. How is this to be handled or
already done?

I think the asnwers are in RFC3172 "Management Guidelines &
Operational Requirements for
        the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain ("arpa")"

From RFC3172, section2:
  The operational administration of this domain, in accordance with
the
  provisions described in this document, shall be performed by the
IANA
  under the terms of the MoU between the IAB and ICANN concerning the
  IANA [3].

From RFC3172, section 2.1:
  The IESG consideration of a document which proposes the use of an
  "arpa" sub-domain shall include consideration of the "IANA
  Considerations" section.  If the document is approved, the IESG
will
  ask the IAB to request the IANA to add the corresponding protocol
  object sub-domain domain to the "arpa" domain, in accordance with
RFC
  2860 [3], with administration of the sub-domain undertaken in
  accordance with the provisions described in this document.

From RFC3172, section 3:
  The IAB shall only recommend the creation of "arpa" sub-domains
  corresponding to protocol entities where:

  -  the delegation, and the hierarchical name structure, is
described
      by an IETF Standards Track document [4], and

  -  the use of the "arpa" domain is explicitly recommended in the
      "IANA Considerations" section of that document.

From RFC3172, section 7:
  As noted in section 3 of this document, the IAB may request the
IANA
  to delegate the sub-domains of "arpa" in accordance with the "IANA
  Considerations" section of an IETF Standards Track document.  This
  request falls under the scope of section 4 of the MoU between the
  IETF and ICANN concerning the IANA [3].


So, according to 2.1, having this approved by the IAB appears to
simply be "we ask the IAB to make the request to IANA", which seems to
answer the practical question in the DISCUSS.

I think section 6 might be worded incorrectly. RFC 3172 doesn't seem
to actually give IAB the right to "approve" the request; only IESG
approval is mentioned.
And the MoU (RFC 2860) doesn't seem to give IAB approval, unless there
is a technical dispute between IESG and IANA:
  If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, IANA will seek and
  follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where
  appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise IANA.
  The IANA will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria
and
  procedures over time, which the IANA will adopt when so instructed
by
  the IESG.

  4.2. In the event of technical dispute between the IANA and the
IESG,
  both will seek guidance from the IAB whose decision shall be final.

It appears to me that IESG has the approval authority, not IAB.

Does that address the DISCUSS adequately?

-- a new related DISCUSS? --

draft-jabley-sink-arpa is an IAB stream BCP, not an IETF Standards
Track document, and section 3 and 7 of RFC 3172 require the IESG
approval of an IETF Standards Track document before
we ask IAB to make the request to IANA to delegate a sub-domain of
"arpa".

So, should draft-abley-sink-arpa be published as an IETF Standards
Track document?

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there will be two actions IANA is required to complete.

First, IANA is to create a new registry for ARPA Reserved Names. Future
additions and modifications of this new registry require IETF Standards Action and IAB Approval. IANA will indicate that the approved document is the reference for the creation of the registry. Each registration in this new registry will include the subdomain name, the purpose of the subdomain, any RR types associated with the subdomain and a reference for the registration.

Second, a single, initial registration will be made in the new registry. IANA will register the following:

Name: SINK.ARPA
Purpose: Definitively non-existent name
RR Types: NONE allowed
Reference: [RFCXXXX]

IANA understands that no further actions are to be completed upon approval of this document. In particular, IANA understands that other subdomains of .arpa are to be registered, if at all, via another document through the IETF standards track and IAB approval.

[Ballot discuss]
Two issues were raised during IETF Last Call, but they have not been
  resolved yet.

  - There is a TODO list to address two comments from Ted Hardie.

  - The SMTP reference needs to be updated.

[Ballot comment]
8.2.  Informative References

  [RFC2821]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
              April 2001.

This should be updated to point to RFC 5321.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Olafur Gudmundsson:
draft-jabley-sink-arpa-00.txt
is ready for publication


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has got some review, this is not a product of a WG
thus the document needs a IETF review.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
no,

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

IAB may want to have a say in the progress of this document as the
IAB is the alleged owner of ".arpa".

(1.e) 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?

NA
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

all references are normative.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes, it has a great IANA considerations section,
it defines a new registry, with a clear name.

There is a strange condition on additions to this registry that IAB
approval is suggested, this is something that IAB input on would be
great. If IAB abdicates to the IETF to the responsibility to add names
to the registry that is fine.


(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes,

(1.k) 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.


This document specifies a fully-qualified domain name in the Domain
Name System (DNS) that can be relied upon never to exist. The
availability of a name in the DNS which is guaranteed not to exist
has useful operational applications.

This document also provides a procedural framework for other names
that have special characteristics to be reserved, and for those
special characteristics to codified as modifications to the normal
ARPA administration process.

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?

N/A

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?

Document is of the highest quality.

Olafur (Shepherd and editor)