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:
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
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 has assigned option code 13 in the "DNS EDNS0 Option Codes (OPT)" registry.
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?