Skip to main content

DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses
draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-26
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Ron Bonica Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
09 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2023-09-21
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2023-09-12
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2023-08-15
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2023-06-14
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2023-06-14
09 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2023-06-14
09 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2023-06-14
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions
2023-06-14
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-06-14
09 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2023-06-14
09 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-06-14
09 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2023-06-14
09 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-06-14
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-06-14
09 Duane Wessels New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-09.txt
2023-06-14
09 (System) New version approved
2023-06-14
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Duane Wessels , Mark Andrews , Paul Wouters , Shumon Huque
2023-06-14
09 Duane Wessels Uploaded new revision
2023-06-08
08 (System) Changed action holders to Mark Andrews, Duane Wessels, Paul Wouters, Shumon Huque (IESG state changed)
2023-06-08
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2023-06-08
08 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-06-07
08 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Gonzalo Salgueiro for his ARTART review.

A stylistic point: The "If message ... full response." sentence (containing BCP 14 key words) …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Gonzalo Salgueiro for his ARTART review.

A stylistic point: The "If message ... full response." sentence (containing BCP 14 key words) should be struck from the Abstract and from the Introduction.  Those are unusual places for interoperability assertions.  It's all spelled out in Section 3 anyway; there's no need for it all to appear several times.
2023-06-07
08 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] Position for Murray Kucherawy has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2023-06-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this specification.

A non-technical comment, there is no need to put normative text in the abstract. It clear in the later …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this specification.

A non-technical comment, there is no need to put normative text in the abstract. It clear in the later section what the draft is doing.
2023-06-07
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-06-07
08 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
** Consider if RFC2119 keywords are appropriate in the abstract

** Section 2.4. Machine produced tool output is provided in this section (from …
[Ballot comment]
** Consider if RFC2119 keywords are appropriate in the abstract

** Section 2.4. Machine produced tool output is provided in this section (from dig).  Please formally cite what generated it.
2023-06-07
08 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-06-06
08 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. As a side note, I think it is the first I-D that I read …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. As a side note, I think it is the first I-D that I read that uses the RFC 6761 'test.' ;-)

No specific comments but I wanted to thank two people in addition to the authors.

Special thanks to Suzanne Woolf for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Tim Winters, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08-intdir-telechat-winters-2023-05-31/

Regards,

-éric
2023-06-06
08 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-06-05
08 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-06-05
08 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-06-05
08 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-06-02
08 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-05-31
08 Timothy Winters Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Timothy Winters. Sent review to list.
2023-05-28
08 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-05-24
08 Paul Wouters [Ballot comment]
I am one of the authors of this document
2023-05-24
08 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-05-23
08 Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Timothy Winters
2023-05-21
08 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2023-05-15
08 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
A stylistic point: The "If message ... full response." sentence (containing BCP 14 key words) should be struck from the Abstract and from …
[Ballot comment]
A stylistic point: The "If message ... full response." sentence (containing BCP 14 key words) should be struck from the Abstract and from the Introduction.  Those are unusual places for interoperability assertions.  It's all spelled out in Section 3 anyway; there's no need for it all to appear several times.
2023-05-15
08 Murray Kucherawy Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy
2023-05-15
08 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-06-08
2023-05-15
08 Warren Kumari Ballot has been issued
2023-05-15
08 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-05-15
08 Warren Kumari Created "Approve" ballot
2023-05-15
08 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-05-11
08 Nicolai Leymann Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann. Sent review to list.
2023-05-10
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-05-08
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-05-08
08 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist
2023-05-08
08 Gonzalo Salgueiro Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Gonzalo Salgueiro. Sent review to list.
2023-05-07
08 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2023-05-03
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2023-05-02
08 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2023-04-27
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2023-04-27
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2023-04-26
08 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Gonzalo Salgueiro
2023-04-26
08 Jim Reid Request for Last Call review by DNSDIR is assigned to Nicolai Leymann
2023-04-26
08 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-04-26
08 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-05-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional@ietf.org, swoolf@pir.org, warren@kumari.net …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-05-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional@ietf.org, swoolf@pir.org, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'DNS Glue Requirements in
Referral Responses'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-05-10. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The DNS uses glue records to allow iterative clients to find the
  addresses of name servers that are contained within a delegated zone.
  Authoritative Servers are expected to return all available glue
  records for in-domain name servers in a referral response.  If
  message size constraints prevent the inclusion of all glue records
  for in-domain name servers, the server MUST set the TC flag to inform
  the client that the response is incomplete, and that the client
  SHOULD use another transport to retrieve the full response.  This
  document updates RFC 1034 to clarify correct server behavior.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2023-04-26
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-04-26
08 Warren Kumari Last call was requested
2023-04-26
08 Warren Kumari Last call announcement was generated
2023-04-26
08 Warren Kumari Ballot approval text was generated
2023-04-26
08 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2023-04-26
08 (System) Changed action holders to Warren Kumari (IESG state changed)
2023-04-26
08 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2023-04-26
08 Warren Kumari Ballot writeup was changed
2023-04-26
08 Suzanne Woolf
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has been around for some time and has benefited from discussion among multiple DNS protocol implementers. This doesn't represent a large number of people but it does represent a major portion of those who will have to implement and maintain the behavior described.

There was very little direct discussion on the WGLC, but the chairs believe that's largely because we ran the WGLC for two related drafts (glue-is-not-optional and 8499bis) at the same time, and finding rough consensus to advance this draft on the basis of both discussions considered together seemed justified.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The most difficult point was differences in usage of some specific terminology ("bailiwick"). This was handled by eliminating use of the term here and adding it to draft-ietf-dnsop-8499bis, which notes that the term is confusing and should be considered historic.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document has only very limited applicability to new implementations; it's a clarification of a much older specification (RFC 1034). Implementers took part in discussion of the draft and will be able to update their software where it differs from the standard as clarified here.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

N/A

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. It provides a small but important clarification to existing protocol, which will help interoperability among DNS implementations. It's well-written and the WG believes it to be technically complete and correct for that purpose.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard is correct for this document because it provides a clarification to a pre-existing standard. The datatracker is up to date.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. There is no applicable intellectual property of which the chairs or editors are aware.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one warning and one substantive comment in idnits:

== There are 31 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
    document.

-- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'NOT REQUIRED' is not
    defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements expression, it
    should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119;
    otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

N/A

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA actions required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-04-26
08 Suzanne Woolf
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has been around for some time and has benefited from discussion among multiple DNS protocol implementers. This doesn't represent a large number of people but it does represent a major portion of those who will have to implement and maintain the behavior described.

There was very little direct discussion on the WGLC, but the chairs believe that's largely because we ran the WGLC for two related drafts (glue-is-not-optional and 8499bis) at the same time, and finding rough consensus to advance this draft on the basis of both discussions considered together seemed justified.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The most difficult point was differences in usage of some specific terminology ("bailiwick"). This was handled by eliminating use of the term here and adding it to draft-ietf-dnsop-8499bis, which notes that the term is confusing and should be considered historic.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document has only very limited applicability to new implementations; it's a clarification of a much older specification (RFC 1034). Implementers took part in discussion of the draft and will be able to update their software where it differs from the standard as clarified here.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

N/A

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. It provides a small but important clarification to existing protocol, which will help interoperability among DNS implementations. It's well-written and the WG believes it to be technically complete and correct for that purpose.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard is correct for this document because it provides a clarification to a pre-existing standard. The datatracker is up to date.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. There is no applicable intellectual property of which the chairs or editors are aware.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one warning and one substantive comment in idnits:

== There are 31 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
    document.

-- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'NOT REQUIRED' is not
    defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements expression, it
    should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119;
    otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

N/A

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA actions required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-04-26
08 Suzanne Woolf Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari
2023-04-26
08 Suzanne Woolf IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-04-26
08 Suzanne Woolf IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-04-26
08 Suzanne Woolf Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-04-26
08 Suzanne Woolf
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has been around for some time and has benefited from discussion among multiple DNS protocol implementers. This doesn't represent a large number of people but it does represent a major portion of those who will have to implement and maintain the behavior described.

There was very little direct discussion on the WGLC, but the chairs believe that's largely because we ran the WGLC for two related drafts (glue-is-not-optional and 8499bis) at the same time, and finding rough consensus to advance this draft on the basis of both discussions considered together seemed justified.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The most difficult point was differences in usage of some specific terminology ("bailiwick"). This was handled by eliminating use of the term here and adding it to draft-ietf-dnsop-8499bis, which notes that the term is confusing and should be considered historic.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document has only very limited applicability to new implementations; it's a clarification of a much older specification (RFC 1034). Implementers took part in discussion of the draft and will be able to update their software where it differs from the standard as clarified here.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

N/A

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. It provides a small but important clarification to existing protocol, which will help interoperability among DNS implementations. It's well-written and the WG believes it to be technically complete and correct for that purpose.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard is correct for this document because it provides a clarification to a pre-existing standard. The datatracker is up to date.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. There is no applicable intellectual property of which the chairs or editors are aware.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one warning and one substantive comment in idnits:

== There are 31 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
    document.

-- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'NOT REQUIRED' is not
    defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements expression, it
    should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119;
    otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

N/A

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA actions required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-04-25
08 Suzanne Woolf
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document has been around for some time and has benefited from discussion among multiple DNS protocol implementers. This doesn't represent a large number of people but it does represent a major portion of those who will have to implement and maintain the behavior described.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The most difficult point was differences in usage of some specific terminology ("bailiwick"). This was handled by eliminating use of the term here and adding it to draft-ietf-dnsop-8499bis, which notes that the term is confusing and should be considered historic.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document has only very limited applicability to new implementations; it's a clarification of a much older specification (RFC 1034). Implementers took part in discussion of the draft and will be able to update their software where it differs from the standard as clarified here.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

N/A

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. It provides a small but important clarification to existing protocol, which will help interoperability among DNS implementations. It's well-written and the WG believes it to be technically complete and correct for that purpose.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard is correct for this document because it provides a clarification to a pre-existing standard. The datatracker is up to date.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. There is no applicable intellectual property of which the chairs or editors are aware.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one warning and one substantive comment in idnits:

== There are 31 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
    document.

-- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'NOT REQUIRED' is not
    defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements expression, it
    should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119;
    otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

N/A

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA actions required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-03-28
08 Suzanne Woolf IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2023-02-20
08 Tim Wicinski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-02-17
08 Duane Wessels New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08.txt
2023-02-17
08 (System) New version approved
2023-02-17
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Duane Wessels , Mark Andrews , Paul Wouters , Shumon Huque
2023-02-17
08 Duane Wessels Uploaded new revision
2022-12-21
07 Benno Overeinder Notification list changed to swoolf@pir.org because the document shepherd was set
2022-12-21
07 Benno Overeinder Document shepherd changed to Suzanne Woolf
2022-09-27
07 Paul Wouters New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-07.txt
2022-09-27
07 Paul Wouters New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Wouters)
2022-09-27
07 Paul Wouters Uploaded new revision
2022-08-25
06 Duane Wessels New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-06.txt
2022-08-25
06 (System) New version approved
2022-08-25
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Duane Wessels , Mark Andrews , Paul Wouters , Shumon Huque
2022-08-25
06 Duane Wessels Uploaded new revision
2022-07-30
05 Tim Wicinski Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-07-30
05 Tim Wicinski Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-04-22
05 Duane Wessels New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-05.txt
2022-04-22
05 (System) New version approved
2022-04-22
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Duane Wessels , Mark Andrews , Paul Wouters , Shumon Huque
2022-04-22
05 Duane Wessels Uploaded new revision
2022-03-21
04 Tim Wicinski Added to session: IETF-113: dnsop  Tue-1000
2022-02-08
04 Duane Wessels New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-04.txt
2022-02-08
04 (System) New version approved
2022-02-08
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Duane Wessels , Mark Andrews , Paul Wouters , Shumon Huque
2022-02-08
04 Duane Wessels Uploaded new revision
2021-10-11
03 Duane Wessels New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-03.txt
2021-10-11
03 (System) New version approved
2021-10-11
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Duane Wessels , Mark Andrews , Paul Wouters , Shumon Huque
2021-10-11
03 Duane Wessels Uploaded new revision
2021-09-09
02 Benno Overeinder Added to session: interim-2021-dnsop-01
2021-08-09
02 Tim Wicinski Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
2021-07-26
02 Shumon Huque New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt
2021-07-26
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Shumon Huque)
2021-07-26
02 Shumon Huque Uploaded new revision
2021-07-26
01 Benno Overeinder Added to session: IETF-111: dnsop  Mon-1600
2021-07-12
01 Shumon Huque New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-01.txt
2021-07-12
01 (System) New version approved
2021-07-12
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mark Andrews , dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
2021-07-12
01 Shumon Huque Uploaded new revision
2020-12-05
00 (System) Document has expired
2020-06-03
00 Tim Wicinski This document now replaces draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional instead of None
2020-06-03
00 Mark Andrews New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-00.txt
2020-06-03
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-06-03
00 Mark Andrews Set submitter to ""M. Andrews" ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
2020-06-03
00 Mark Andrews Uploaded new revision