1. Summary
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Area Director: Joel Jaggeli
Document Type: Experimental
This document defines an EDNS0 extension that can be used by a security-aware
validating Resolver configured to use a Forwarder to send a single query,
requesting a complete validation path along with the regular query answer.
2. Review and Consensus
This document was heavily reviewed, and discussed by the Working Group. There
had been a few operational issues brought up that were resolved. During the
WGLC, there was an argument from one person that this could be solved using a
different mechanism. It was pointed out that the other mechanism has never been
attempted or implemented. It is worth reading for a sense of the discussion
that started here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YAOKdXMZe4iMt2HV0CT-cAtjVKQ
The WG is behind this document. There are some reviews from the Apps Area that
helped clean up the document.
As this is experimental, there are current attempts to implement this. As
operational knowledge becomes available, this document will move toward
Proposed Standard.
3. Intellectual Property
There are no IPR related to this document.
4. Other Points
Downward References:
There currently exists normative references to Informational or Experimental
RFCs. We are working with the Authors to clear these up.
Note any downward references (see RFC 3967) and whether they appear in the
DOWNREF Registry
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry), as these
need to be announced during Last Call.
IANA Considerations:
IANA has assigned option code 13 in the "DNS EDNS0 Option Codes (OPT)" registry.
Checklist
This section is not meant to be submitted, but is here as a useful checklist of
things the document shepherd is expected to have verified before publication is
requested from the responsible Area Director. If the answers to any of these is
"no", please explain the situation in the body of the writeup.
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? (In general, nits should be
fixed before the document is sent to the IESG. If there are reasons that some
remain (false positives, perhaps, or abnormal things that are necessary for
this particular document), explain them.)
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?
- Have all references within this document been identified as either normative
or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified?
- 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:
- Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have
to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the
required actions. - Are all protocol extensions that the document makes
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries? - Are all
IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)? - Have you checked that any
registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and
procedures for the appropriate registries? - For registrations that require
expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have
you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the
requests are ready for last call? - For any new registries that this
document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation
procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives? Have reasonable
registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other
registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been
clearly specified?