Using DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA Records with SRV Records
draft-ietf-dane-srv-14

[Ballot comment]
Just a nit..

Every day I learn new things.  Today was the day that I learned that TLSA actually doesn't mean anything.  My first guess had been that it had something to do with TLS (TLS Authentication?) and spent some time trying to decipher in the context of the draft.  Eventually I did find the "definition" in rfc6698: "TLSA" does not stand for anything; it is just the name of the RRtype.

Maybe most/all of the readers of this document will already know what TLSA is, but just like we tend to expand non obvious (at least to me!) acronyms when they are first mentioned, it would be nice (specially for readers like me) to clear up front what it means (or doesn't mean).

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this.  Protocols using SRV have been left out of the DANE party for too long :-) But I still have a couple of comments:

3.1, 2nd paragraph (note)

I have mixed emotions about smtp-with-dane as an informational reference. Putting it in a "note" aside, can one safely implement and use dane-srv without reading that draft? (If the answer is really "yes", then I'm okay with it.)

3.2, first paragraph:

Is this meant to imply that one must resolve every SRV target? I would assume that it follows the normal SRV rules and application protocol rules, which may or may not result in queries for every SRV target in the set.

[Ballot comment]
* The reference to Section 4 of draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane in the Note within section 3.1 seems out-of-date.

* The intro to Section 3.2 says "A and/or AAAA", but the first two bullets in the list seems to assume that both A and AAAA lookups are performed.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dane-srv-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Using DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA Records with SRV Records) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the DNS-based Authentication of
Named Entities WG (dane) to consider the following document:
- 'Using DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA Records
  with SRV Records'
  as Internet Standard

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 2015-04-17. 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 DANE specification (RFC 6698) describes how to use TLSA resource
  records secured by DNSSEC (RFC 4033) to associate a server's
  connection endpoint with its TLS certificate.  However, application
  protocols that use SRV records (RFC 2782) to indirectly name the
  target server connection endpoints for a service domain cannot apply
  the rules from RFC 6698.  Therefore this document provides guidelines
  that enable such protocols to locate and use TLSA records.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-srv/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dane-srv/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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?

Standards Track


(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:

This document specifies the general case how to find TLSA records, for
a protocols that uses SRV records for service discovery.
The goal of this document is to cover the general cases not every
corner case. It is explicitly called out that protocols that use SRV
may specify differently.

Working Group Summary:

There has been good discussion on this document, there is strong
consensus about the whole document.


Document Quality:

The document is well written. The protocol sepecified here is for the
general case where SRV records are used. 
There is interest to deploy this technology in number of existing and
proposed protocols. 

It is helpful to read this document along with its companion document
draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-xx The two document cross referene
each other to avoid duplicaiton.

Personnel:

Document Sheperd: Olafur Gudmundsson
Area Director: Stephen Farrell


(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 shepert has reviewed the document multiple times, for
context, clarity and consitency. This document is ready for publication.


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

NO

(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


(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.

NONE 

(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?

YES


(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?

STRONG


(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 LEFT.


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

NOT NEEDED


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

YES


(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 is one document that is normative that is in WG progress we will
be attemtpting to advance it soon, thus the expection is that this
document will wait for the missing document draft-ietf-dane-ops-xx to
catch up in publication process.


(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).

NO IANA actions

(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.

NONE,

(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.

Does not apply