(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?
This RFC is being requested as "Informational", as it describes operational
aspects of using Negative Trust Anchors to provide a better DNSSEC experience.
This is indicated in the title page.
(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:
As DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) is being widely deployed, tools and
processes are not fully mature. Creating a temporary object called Negative
Trust Anchor to temporarily disable DNSSEC validation for misconfigured
domains; thereby allowing DNS resolution to continue working.
Working Group Summary:
The working group spent time reviewing the document, and several points were
raised about the deployment of these trust anchors. However, all points raised
involved clarification text which made the final document more robust. There
were no decisions that were particularly rough.
Document Quality:
The document is of good quality. There were several editorial passes done
during the timeframe, all of which cleared up the text. The document has a
section on managing these Negative Trust Anchors, and laid out in a manner that
operators of DNS zones will be able to use. Additionally, there are examples
from existing DNS tools in Appendix A.
Personnel: Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski and Responsible Area Director is
Joel Jaeggli.
(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 Document Shepherd performed two different reviews - a content level review,
and a language editing process. The document is ready for IESG review and
publications.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The Document Shepherd feels the depth and breath of the reviews are more than
sufficient for this document.
(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 portions of this document requires review from a broader perspective.
(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.
The Document Shepherd has no concerns or issues with the document moving
forward.
(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.
The authors confirms that their is no IPR disclosures required for this
document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There are no IPR disclosures that reference this document.
(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?
The WG consensus is strong and vocal, and the working group as a whole
understands this document.
(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.)
There has been no appeal or discontent filed.
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does not meet any required formal review criteria.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
The Document Shepherd feels that all references have been identified as either
normative or informative.
(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?
There are no normative references that are not ready.
(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.
The Document Shepherd does not feel there are any downward normative references.
(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.
Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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 5226).
There are no IANA considerations for this document.
(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.
There are no IANA registries involved here.
(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, etc.