As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
BCP. This is appropriate because the document collects a fair amount of history
and detail in order to clearly establish a specific feature of the standard and
best practices for operators with regards to configuration and monitoring.
(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 updates [RFC1123] to make a SHOULD into a MUST in the standard,
and strongly encourages the operational practice of permitting DNS messages to
be carried over TCP on the Internet as a best current practice. Such
encouragement is aligned with the implementation requirements in RFC 7766. The
use of TCP includes both DNS over unencrypted TCP, as well as over an encrypted
TLS session. The document also considers the consequences with this form of
DNS communication and the potential operational issues that can arise when this
best current practice is not upheld.
Working Group Summary:
This document has been around in various forms for some time, and has been
extensively reviewed in the WG by both protocol experts and DNS operators. THe
authors are experienced DNS protocol designers and operators as well, and
responded to every issue raised in the WG discussion over time.
Document Quality:
This document clarifies and strengthens an existing protocol feature specified
in RFC 1123 from a SHOULD to a MUST. The bulk of it is a justification of the
MUST for implementers, and corresponding advice to operators that they use the
feature. For many years it's been typical for DNS implementers to provide code
for servicing DNS requests over TCP, but it has also been common for operators
to turn it off; this document attempts to establish a best common practice for
operators to only use DNS software that implements TCP support and to not
disable the capability.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Suzanne Woolf
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Warren Kumari
(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 extensively reviewed the current version and recent discussion
of it. It clearly states its recommendations and the reasons for them, and has
gotten support in the WG from both implementers and operators.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No. This document makes a straightforward set of recommendations with clear
justification.
(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.
There are no concerns.
(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 we have confirmation.
(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 was a good diversity of support in the WG Last Call. Authors were engaged
in the discussion and responsive to concerns.
(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.
Nits from the previous draft have been covered by the editors.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None required.
(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?
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.
(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.
This document updates RFC 1123. This is mentioned in the Abstract and discussed
in detail in Section 3.
(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 8126).
There are no IANA actions or substantive considerations.
(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.
No new registries.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
N/A