Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Area Director: Joel Jaggeli
Document Type: Standards Track
The document specifies the requirements for support TCP as a transport protocol for DNS. It also provides guidelines on optimizing performance of DNS over TCP.
2. Review and Consensus
This document was actively discussed and reviewed, partially because this is a revision of an older RFC, but also as more DNS falls back to TCP (DNSSEC) and the need for DNS to support the DNS-over-TLS work in DPRIVE working group. The community feels updating the older RFC is well needed. This also include the initial author of RFC5966.
The document had a broad discussion as the wording of several points were more accurately described. Once these issues were resolved, consensus was strong with no complaints.
The shepherd did a deep editorial review of this draft and found it to be solid. The shepherd has no concerns moving forward.
3. Intellectual Property
There is no IPR related to this document, and the authors have no direct, personal knowledge of any IPR.
4. Other Points
- Downward References:
There are no downward references in this document.
- IANA Considerations:
There are no IANA Considerations in this document.
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?
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?
X- Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for
advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
X- 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?
X- If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been considered?
X- IANA Considerations