Skip to main content

DNS Terminology
RFC 7719

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-07-29
05 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag (all errata rejected))
2017-11-12
05 Tim Wicinski Removed from session: IETF-100: dnsop  Mon-0930
2017-11-12
05 Tim Wicinski Added to session: IETF-100: dnsop  Mon-0930
2015-12-15
05 (System) RFC published
2015-12-11
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-11-30
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-11-19
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2015-11-18
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from "Tim Wicinski"  to (None)
2015-09-30
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-09-30
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-09-30
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-09-30
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2015-09-30
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-09-30
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-09-30
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-09-30
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-09-30
05 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-09-30
05 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2015-09-24
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-09-24
05 Paul Hoffman IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-09-24
05 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-05.txt
2015-09-17
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-09-17
04 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-09-17
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-09-16
04 Terry Manderson
[Ballot comment]
No-objection from me regarding the existence of this document, I do think it's helpful, however along with others (Ben, Benoit, Alvaro) I feel …
[Ballot comment]
No-objection from me regarding the existence of this document, I do think it's helpful, however along with others (Ben, Benoit, Alvaro) I feel the work is incomplete if a revision is required so soon.

I would feel much more comfortable if the document was taken back to the WG and completed before being published.
2015-09-16
04 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-09-16
04 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-09-16
04 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-09-16
04 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-09-16
04 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting "yes" because I think a document like this should exist. But I share the question others have raised about why publish …
[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting "yes" because I think a document like this should exist. But I share the question others have raised about why publish this version if a newer version is coming soon.

A few other minor comments:

This is listed as informational, but it was last called as a BCP. I'm not sure if that matters, since a BCP would have been held to as high or higher a standard than an informational RFC.

The shepherd's answer to question 7 does not address the question about whether authors have confirmed that they have complied with the IPR rules.

SoA gets mentioned a few times, but If there is a definition, I failed to find it.
2015-09-16
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-09-16
04 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
This is a very nice, and needed reference.

However, I don’t understand why it is being published.  As others have pointed out, the …
[Ballot comment]
This is a very nice, and needed reference.

However, I don’t understand why it is being published.  As others have pointed out, the Introduction reads:

  Therefore, the authors intend to follow this document with a
  substantial revision in the not-distant future.  That revision will
  probably have more in-depth discussion of some terms as well as new
  terms; it will also update some of the RFCs with new definitions.

If a revision is coming soon, why not wait?  What does an RFC number give the authors/WG that the ongoing maintenance of an ID doesn’t?  The statement above just reads as if the work is not complete.

This point has been made by others, so I won’t stand in the way of publication.
2015-09-16
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-09-16
04 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
This is a really great resource. Thank you for putting it together.

I had a few points where I wasn't understanding the text …
[Ballot comment]
This is a really great resource. Thank you for putting it together.

I had a few points where I wasn't understanding the text as well as I'd hoped. I offer them, in case you see better ways to explain things, but no response is needed if the answer is "Spencer just needs to pay attention".

If this

      For example, at the time this document is published, the "au" TLD
      is not considered a public suffix, but the "com.au" domain is.
      (Note that this example might change in the future.)
     
is intended to say that a subdomain may be a public suffix when its domain is not, that could be stated more clearly. If it's intended to say something else, I don't know what that is (and "For example" didn't help!)

In this text

      Some servers do not honor the TTL on an
      RRset from the authoritative servers, such as when the
      authoritative data has a very short TTL.
     
I wasn't sure what "do not honor" meant - discarding the RRset before the TTL has expired, hanging onto the RRset after the TTL has expired, or flipping a coin?

In this text

  DNSSEC-aware and DNSSEC-unaware:  Section 2 of [RFC4033] defines many
      types of resolvers and validators, including "non-validating
      security-aware stub resolver", "non-validating stub resolver",
      "security-aware name server", "security-aware recursive name
      server", "security-aware resolver", "security-aware stub
      resolver", and "security-oblivious 'anything'".  However, "DNSSEC-
      aware" and "DNSSEC-unaware" are used in later RFCs, but never
      formally defined.  (Note that the term "validating resolver",
      which is used in some places in those documents, is nevertheless
      not defined in that section.)
     
so, there's no formal definition anywhere? Maybe that could be the first thing that this list item says? It's somewhat buried under all the terms that ARE defined, which seems backwards.

I'm also slightly confused about why "validating resolver" is mentioned in this list item, instead of appearing in a separate list item. Is the common element that it's not defined anywhere else, either?
2015-09-16
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-09-16
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-09-16
04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

- Reading first the write-up, I started to wonder about the rationale to produce a terminology document as BCP? …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document.

- Reading first the write-up, I started to wonder about the rationale to produce a terminology document as BCP?
I re-read RFC 2026, and concluded that BCPs should document standardize practive.
Then I realized the diff between version 3 and 4 :-)

- From the shepherd writeup:
"One issue raised by the Working Group was that such a list of definitions would be best served with some sort of Index.
The authors and the Document Shepherd agree, but feel it would be better served being handled during the editing process."
What/when is the editing process? AUTH48? Why wait?

- "Most of the definitions here are believed to be the consensus
definition of the DNS community - both protocol developers and
operators."
I hope we can write: "Most of the definitions here are the consensus
definition of the DNS community - both protocol developers and
operators.", leaving no doubts about the process.

- "Further, some terms that
  are defined in early DNS RFCs now have definitions that are generally
  agreed to, but that are different from the original definitions.
  Therefore, the authors intend to follow this document with a
  substantial revision in the not-distant future.  That revision will
  probably have more in-depth discussion of some terms as well as new
  terms; it will also update some of the RFCs with new definitions."

You lost me here. Do you want a new revision of this document, or revisions of early DNS RFCs, or both?
And why do you say "That revision will probably have more in-depth discussion of some terms".
Does it mean that THIS document is not final? This is the way I read it.
2015-09-16
04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-09-15
04 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

Thanks for this.

Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? Do we care? The definition
of Alias might imply that we do. Not …
[Ballot comment]

Thanks for this.

Is a domain a sub-domain of itself? Do we care? The definition
of Alias might imply that we do. Not sure.
2015-09-15
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-09-15
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-09-11
04 David Black Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-09-11
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-09-11
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-08-31
04 Paul Hoffman IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-08-31
04 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-04.txt
2015-08-25
03 Joel Jaeggli Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-17
2015-08-25
03 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-08-25
03 Joel Jaeggli Ballot has been issued
2015-08-25
03 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-08-25
03 Joel Jaeggli Created "Approve" ballot
2015-08-25
03 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was changed
2015-08-25
03 Joel Jaeggli Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-08-13
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang.
2015-08-13
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-08-11
03 David Black Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black.
2015-08-11
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-08-08
03 Tim Wicinski Intended Status changed to Informational from Best Current Practice
2015-08-06
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-08-06
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-08-06
03 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2015-08-04
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-08-04
03 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2015-08-03
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2015-08-03
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2015-08-03
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang
2015-08-03
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang
2015-07-30
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-07-30
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black
2015-07-30
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2015-07-30
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie
2015-07-28
03 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-07-28
03 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DNS Terminology) to Best Current …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DNS Terminology) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document:
- 'DNS Terminology'
  as Best Current Practice

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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-11. 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


  The DNS is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs.  The
  terminology used in by implementers and developers of DNS protocols,
  and by operators of DNS systems, has sometimes changed in the decades
  since the DNS was first defined.  This document gives current
  definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single
  document.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology/ballot/


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


2015-07-28
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-07-28
03 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2015-07-27
03 Joel Jaeggli Last call was requested
2015-07-27
03 Joel Jaeggli Last call announcement was generated
2015-07-27
03 Joel Jaeggli Ballot approval text was generated
2015-07-27
03 Joel Jaeggli Ballot writeup was generated
2015-07-27
03 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-06-28
03 Joel Jaeggli IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-06-25
03 Tim Wicinski

(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?  …

(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?

This RFC is being requested as a Best Current Practice (BCP).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

The Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs
which have been updated over time.  This document attempts to give current
definitions to many of the terms used in DNS in a single document.


Working Group Summary

This document had a large amount of working group discussion, editing,
reviews, and opinions.  This draft was attempting to document what current
definitions are defined in existing RFCs.  There was suggestions to 'correct'
some of the definitions to make what the real world definition is.  The
decision was made that any changes to definitions would be done in a -bis
document within a year.


Document Quality

This document is of very good quality. Time was spent preparing the
definitions, discussing the wording, and getting the editing just right.


Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski and the Area Director is Joel Jaggeli.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has done a thorough read of the draft, and is satisfied
with the work being done.  The Shepherd also tracked all issues raised by
reviewers and conferred with the authors that they were all addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breath of the reviews
on this document. They were quite detailed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document is a very detailed DNS definitions document, and it was been
reviewed by the DNSOP working group is detail.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should
be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain
parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it.
In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it
still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd has no real concerns with the document. One issue raised by the Working Group
was that such a list of definitions would be best served with some sort of Index.
The authors and the Document Shepherd agree, but feel it would be better
served being handled during the editing process.


(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.

There are no IPR disclosures.

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

There are no IPR disclosures regarding this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The working group consensus is very solid behind this document.  The reviewers
were very wide.

Early in the discussion of the document, the decision was made to align the
definitions in this draft with existing RFCs, even though those definitions
are incomplete or incorrect.  The Shepherd agrees that the first version of
this draft reflect existing RFC definitions.  Many in the Working Group want
to correct some of these definitions.  The compromise is go generate a -bis
RFC in a year which addresses important terms which are not in full consense.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email
messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email
because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No Appeals have been threatened.

(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.

The Shepherd has looked for ID nits but has not found any.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This draft does not meet any formal review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

All references have been identified as normative or informative.

(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 no normative references to documents in an unclear state.

(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 no downward normative references

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it
unnecessary.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that
newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been
suggested (see RFC 5226).

- There are no IANA Considerations

(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.

- There are no new IANA requirements.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

2015-06-24
03 Tim Wicinski

(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?  …

(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?

This RFC is being requested as a Best Current Practice (BCP).

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

The Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs
which have been updated over time.  This document attempts to give current
definitions to many of the terms used in DNS in a single document.


Working Group Summary

This document had a large amount of working group discussion, editing,
reviews, and opinions.  This draft was attempting to document what current
definitions are defined in existing RFCs.  There was suggestions to 'correct'
some of the definitions to make what the real world definition is.  The
decision was made that any changes to definitions would be done in a -bis
document within a year.


Document Quality

This document is of very good quality. Time was spent preparing the
definitions, discussing the wording, and getting the editing just right.


Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski and the Area Director is Joel Jaggeli.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has done a thorough read of the draft, and is satisfied
with the work being done.  The Shepherd also tracked all issues raised by
reviewers and conferred with the authors that they were all addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breath of the reviews
on this document. They were quite detailed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document is a very detailed DNS definitions document, and it was been
reviewed by the DNSOP working group is detail.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should
be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain
parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it.
In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it
still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

(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.

There are no IPR disclosures.

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

There are no IPR disclosures regarding this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The working group consensus is very solid behind this document.  The reviewers
were very wide.

Early in the discussion of the document, the decision was made to align the
definitions in this draft with existing RFCs, even though those definitions
are incomplete or incorrect.  The Shepherd agrees that the first version of
this draft reflect existing RFC definitions.  Many in the Working Group want
to correct some of these definitions.  The compromise is go generate a -bis
RFC in a year which addresses important terms which are not in full consense.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email
messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email
because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No Appeals have been threatened.

(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.

The Shepherd has looked for ID nits but has not found any.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This draft does not meet any formal review criteria.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

All references have been identified as normative or informative.

(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 no normative references to documents in an unclear state.

(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 no downward normative references

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it
unnecessary.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that
newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been
suggested (see RFC 5226).

- There are no IANA Considerations

(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.

- There are no new IANA requirements.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

2015-06-24
03 Tim Wicinski Responsible AD changed to Joel Jaeggli
2015-06-24
03 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2015-06-24
03 Tim Wicinski IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-06-24
03 Tim Wicinski IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-06-22
03 Tim Wicinski Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2015-06-22
03 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03.txt
2015-06-19
02 Tim Wicinski Changed document writeup
2015-06-07
02 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2015-05-26
02 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-02.txt
2015-05-20
01 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-04-29
01 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt
2015-04-17
00 Tim Wicinski This document now replaces draft-hoffman-dns-terminology instead of None
2015-04-17
00 Tim Wicinski Notification list changed to "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
2015-04-17
00 Tim Wicinski Document shepherd changed to Tim Wicinski
2015-04-14
00 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-00.txt