Shepherd writeup
rfc8501-07

1. Summary

Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski   
Area Director:    Warren Kumari 

Document Type: This document is intended to be Informational.  It intends 
to give guidance to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on how to manage
PTR records with IPv6. 

2. Review and Consensus

This document was reviewed pretty extensively.  There were several 
issues brought up during the document, which the authors and the
working group were able to resolve over time.  Since the 
document presents operational guidance, there is no specific 
implementations needed. 

3. Intellectual Property

There is no IPR related to this document. 

4. Other Points

There are no downard references in this document. 

There are no IANA considerations for this document.

The only Nit with the document is this:

    The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
    recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
    keywords. 

    RFC 2119 keyword, line 322: '...erior interfaces MUST NOT be processed...'
-----
Checklist

This section is not meant to be submitted, but is here as a useful
checklist of things the document shepherd is expected to have verified
before publication is requested from the responsible Area Director. If
the answers to any of these is "no", please explain the situation in
the body of the writeup.

X Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is
  ready for publication?

X Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?

X Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as
  a brief summary?

X Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in
  the introduction?

X Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.)
  been requested and/or completed?

X Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see
  http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist),
  checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so
  on -- and determined that the document passes the tests? (In general,
  nits should be fixed before the document is sent to the IESG.  If there
  are reasons that some remain (false positives, perhaps, or abnormal
  things that are necessary for this particular document), explain them.)

X Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any
  IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance
  with BCPs 78 and 79?

X Have all references within this document been identified as either
  normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they
  have been classified?

N/A - Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for
  advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?

N/A - If publication of this document changes the status of any existing
  RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the
  changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just
  mentioned) in the introduction?

N/A - If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?

N/A - IANA Considerations:
    - Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA
      have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they
      can perform the required actions.
    - Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated
      with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
    - Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check
      them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
    - Have you checked that any registrations made by this document
      correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate
      registries?
    - For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert
      Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group
      had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready 
      for last call?
    - For any new registries that this document creates, has the working
      group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and
      discussed the alternatives? Have reasonable registry names been
      chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries),
      and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly
      specified?
Back