Shepherd writeup
rfc7719-05

(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.

Back