Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements

(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?

Informational.

(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:

DNS-SD/mDNS is widely used today for discovery and resolution of services and
names on a local link, but there are use cases to extend DNS-SD/mDNS to enable
service discovery beyond the local link.  This document provides a problem
statement and documents a set of requirements against which solutions can be
designed and measured.

Working Group Summary:

The WG generally reached strong consensus on all points, including all
requirements, in the document.

There was some specific discussion about whether wireless links should be
treated differently, but it was agreed that REQ9 should be generalised and say
"SSD should operate efficiently on common link layers and link types."

The evolution of the other requirements was quite smooth with good consensus.

Document Quality:

As a requirements document, a number of implementors/vendors have expressed an
interest in working towards a common, interoperable solution for service
discovery across multiple links.

No specialist review was required.

A separate threat analysis is being documented through
draft-rafiee-dnssd-mdns-threatmodel-01.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document shepherd: Tim Chown

Responsible AD: Ted Lemon

(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 shepherd has reviewed the draft through its iterations in the dnssd WG and
believes it represents full and fair consensus of the WG. The document was in
reasonable shape by IETF89, and a small number of final points were agreed at
IETF90. The shepherd ensured that the authors applied the updates agreed by the
WG.

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

The document has been reviewed and commented on by a number of experienced WG
members, and thus I am happy with the quality of review of the document.

(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.

No. Though a threat analysis activity for dnssd has been spun out into a
separate dcoument, draft-rafiee-dnssd-mdns-threatmodel-01, which is being
presented and discussed at IETF91. I believe the main requirements text can
advance as is meanwhile.

(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 requirements document has allowed consensus to be agreed within the dnssd
WG on the properties required of potential solution(s) and solution elements.

The WG showed a strong consensus to advance the document.

(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?

The draft includes the boilerplate confirming that the document "is submitted
in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79". No disclosures
have been made, nor are expected to be made in an Informational requirements
draft.

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

No.

(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?

There is a strong consensus on the document, and progressing it.

The only person expressing anything like strong views against parts of the
document is Doug Otis, who has expressed comments about trill, and use of ULA
overlays. The chairs do not believe his comments are relevant to the WG.

(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.

(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.

None.

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

None applicable.

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

Yes.

Some references need updating, but this can be handled by the RFC Editor,
paricularly homenet-arch, now RFC7368, and making the format of the mDNS and
DNS-SD references consistent.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

No.

(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).

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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.

None.
Back