DNS Terminology
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
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 |