Shepherd writeup

1) RFC type is Proposed Standard, and this will be discussed further down.


Technical Summary:

   This document describes a protocol and new DNS Resource Record that
   can be used to provide a cryptographic message digest over DNS zone
   data.  The ZONEMD Resource Record conveys the digest data in the zone
   itself.  When a zone publisher includes an ZONEMD record, recipients
   can verify the zone contents for accuracy and completeness.  This
   provides assurance that received zone data matches published data,
   regardless of how the zone data has been transmitted and received.

Working Group Summary:

There were several discussions during the working group process,
but they were all resolved.  The only other point raised was with
the intended document status (currently Standards Track).  Please
see comments in Section 6

Document Quality:

There has been implementations of the DNS record in several public
domain DNS servers.   However, because of the narrow use for this
resource record, the shepherd does not feel that vendors will see
the need to implement. More than one managed DNS vendor has indicated
they see no need to implement.

Document Shepherd:  Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director:  Barry Leiba

(3)  The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document
for content as well as simple editorial checks (spelling/grammar).
The shepherd feels the document is ready for publication.

(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns on the depth or breadth of the reviews.

(5) There is no need for broader review.

(6) The only concern the document shepherd has is of the intended
RFC status. While this draft creates a new RRType, the use case
appears to be quite narrow, primarily for TLDs.  Because of this,
there doesn't appear to be any interest with Managed DNS Vendors
from supporting this RRType.  Because of this narrow scope, the
shepherd felt the status of Informational was more appropriate.

(7) No IPR disclosures

(8) There is no IPR

(9) The WG Consensus on this document is very good, the authors ma

(10) There has been no appeals.

(11) All nits found have been addressed by the authors.

(12) No formal review needed

(13) All references have been identified as normative or informative.

(14) All normative references are in a clear state.

(15) There are no downward normative references

(16)  This RFC will not change any existing RFCs.

(17)The document shepherd confirmed the consistency and references
of the IANA Considerations section are accurate.

(18) There are two IANA registries created:

1) ZONEMD Scheme Registry

2) ZONEMD Hash Algorithm Registry

Additions to both registries adopt the IANA policy of Specification
Required, per RFC8216.  There should be no requirement for expert

(19) N/A

(20) No Yang Necessary