As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
1)
RFC Type: Proposed Standard
Correct RFC type indicated in title: yes
This Document is the correct type as it updates an existing Standards
Track Document (RFC4035)
(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?
(2)
Technical Summary
This document specifies the use of NSEC/NSEC3 resource records to
allow DNSSEC validating resolvers to generate negative answers within
a range, and positive answers from wildcards. This increases
performance / decreases latency, decreases resource utilization on
both authoritative and recursive servers, and also increases privacy.
It may also help increase resilience to certain DoS attacks in some
circumstances.-33
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Area Director: Joel Jaeggli
(3)
The document shepherd did a deep dive on the document for technical
correctness, as well as an editorial pass for grammar and diction.
The shepherd feels this document is ready for publication.
(4)
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breath of
the reviews.
(5)
No additional reviews needed.
(6)
The document shepherd has no concerns about this document for the Area
Directors.
(7) The authors have confirmed they are not aware of any IPR against this
document.
(9)
The working group is in strong consenus for this document.
(10)
There has been no extreme discontent.
(11)
No Nits found
(12)
(13)
All references have been identified as normative or informative
(14)
There are no normative references in an unclear state
(15)
There are normative references to RFCs 7129 and 7719. Those are informational RFCs.
(16)
Publication of this document will update RFC 4035.
(17)
The IANA Considerations section requests the assignment of a new
EDNS0 option code. Discussing with the Expert Reviewer of DNS parameters,
this section is correctly structured
(18)
No new IANA Registries