Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance
draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2007-03-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2007-03-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2007-03-13
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2007-03-12
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2007-03-12
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2007-03-12
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2007-03-09
|
08 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-03-08 |
2007-03-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2007-03-08
|
08 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2007-03-08
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2007-03-08
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2007-03-08
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2007-03-08
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-03-07
|
08 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2007-03-07
|
08 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Evaluation Comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2007-03-07
|
08 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie |
2007-03-06
|
08 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2007-03-02
|
08 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2007-02-28
|
08 | David Kessens | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-03-08 by David Kessens |
2007-02-28
|
08 | David Kessens | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by David Kessens |
2007-02-28
|
08 | David Kessens | [Note]: 'Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> is the document shepherd' added by David Kessens |
2007-02-28
|
08 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for David Kessens |
2007-02-28
|
08 | David Kessens | Ballot has been issued by David Kessens |
2007-02-28
|
08 | David Kessens | Created "Approve" ballot |
2007-02-28
|
08 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-02-28
|
08 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-02-28
|
08 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-02-20
|
08 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version … PROTO Write-up (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? Peter Koch is the document shepherd for this document, has read the latest version (-08) of the draft and, yes, I believe it is ready for consideration by the IESG. (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 received much attention before and after the WGLC (see Acknowledgements section). There are no concerns regarding the breadth or depth of the 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? This document lists current practice and operational requirements and has seen contributions from both vendors and operators. There are no concerns of lack of review. (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? There are no such issues. Noone raised any IPR issues. (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? After the WGLC for -04 there were several reviews posted by Pekka Savola, Bruce Campbell, Brett Carr, Daniel Senie, Olaf Kolkman, and Andrew Sullivan. There was some discussion whether or not the documentation of the DNS RR based identification convention should appear together with the requirements. The WG consensus was to keep both parts in one document since the disadvantages of the old method were considered a good start and motivation for setting the requirements for a standardized scheme. Subsequent versions of the draft incorporated WGLC and post WGLC comments as well as nits review issues. There is a good WG consensus behind this document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? I am not aware of any such threat or indication. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). This document has passed the online ID nits tool and has also been checked in multiple cycles of proofreading. (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? This document has split references and the document shepherd believes the assignments are appropriate. There are no downward references. There is one I-D listed as an Informational reference, pointing to draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-02.txt, which is currently waiting for this document to be processed. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? This document does not request any IANA action. As a coincidence, one of the editors is a member of IANA staff, so there is strong belief IANA issues received due attention. (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? N/A (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 This document explains a current convention for identifying a particular name server out of a set of servers in an anycast cloud or behind a load balancer. It explains key disadvantages of this practice and discusses a set of requirements for an improved mechanism. 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? This document evolved from a purely documenting informational draft into a requirements document after the WG determined that a single dedicated DNS based information query had operational disadvantages. There was some discussion about splitting the documentation part and the requirements part, but the WG decided to keep it as is. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? The DNS RR based convention as documented in this draft has been supported by multiple vendors of DNS server software. The dnsext WG has produced "DNS Name Server Identifier Option (NSID)", , which took into account the requirements laid out in this draft. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Peter Koch Responsible AD: David Kessens |
2007-02-20
|
08 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2007-02-16
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-08.txt |
2006-06-28
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-07.txt |
2006-03-06
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-06.txt |
2005-10-28
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-05.txt |
2005-03-31
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-04.txt |
2004-07-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-02.txt |
2002-11-06
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-01.txt |
2002-05-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-00.txt |