Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status
draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-03-25
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-02-26
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-02-03
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2020-01-24
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-01-19
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Fred Baker was marked no-response |
2019-11-05
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-11-05
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-11-05
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-11-04
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-11-04
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-11-04
|
02 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-11-04
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-11-04
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-11-04
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-11-04
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-11-04
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-11-04
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-10-31
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2019-10-31
|
02 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-10-31
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT. |
2019-10-31
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-10-31
|
02 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-10-31
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-10-31
|
02 | Matthijs Mekking | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-02.txt |
2019-10-31
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-31
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Willem Mekking , Dan Mahoney |
2019-10-31
|
02 | Matthijs Mekking | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-30
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-10-30
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] This document needs to incorporate the boilerplate about normative keywords from RFC 8174 as well as references to RFC 8174 and RFC 2119 … |
2019-10-30
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] A couple of suggestions since this is being written for posterity as a consensus document of the IETF: s/not every validator actually implements … [Ballot comment] A couple of suggestions since this is being written for posterity as a consensus document of the IETF: s/not every validator actually implements DLV/not every validator actually implemented DLV/ s/The authors are not aware of any such use of DLV./There are no known uses of DLV for this./ |
2019-10-30
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-10-29
|
01 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 It's probably best to consistently use the past tense here. Section 3 Historic status. This is a clear signal to … [Ballot comment] Section 1 It's probably best to consistently use the past tense here. Section 3 Historic status. This is a clear signal to implementers that the DLV resource record and the DLV mechanism SHOULD NOT be implemented or deployed. I suppose the debate about "SHOULD NOT" vs. "MUST NOT" has already happened and does not need to be reopened, so I'll just leave it at that. |
2019-10-29
|
01 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-10-29
|
01 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 1. Is there a reference that can be cited to support the metric that 1389 of 1531 TLDs have secure delegation? … [Ballot comment] ** Section 1. Is there a reference that can be cited to support the metric that 1389 of 1531 TLDs have secure delegation? ** Editorial. From idnits: The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 117: '...he DLV mechanism SHOULD NOT be impleme...' ** Editorial -- The Table of Contents doesn’t appear to have generated the Section-to-Page Number mapping |
2019-10-29
|
01 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-10-29
|
01 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot comment text updated for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot comment] Hello, thank you for this document. IMHO it would be clearer if this document were to propose the new text for the updated … [Ballot comment] Hello, thank you for this document. IMHO it would be clearer if this document were to propose the new text for the updated RFCs, especially for 6840. |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-10-27
|
01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-10-25
|
01 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-10-25
|
01 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-10-25
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-10-31 |
2019-10-25
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Ballot has been issued |
2019-10-25
|
01 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-10-25
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-10-25
|
01 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2019-10-18
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2019-10-18
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2019-10-18
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Fred Baker was marked no-response |
2019-10-14
|
01 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-10-14
|
01 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs registry on the Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters registry page located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/ the existing entry for Type: DLV Value: 32769 Meaning: DNSSEC Lookaside Validation Reference: RFC4331 Template: Registration Date: will be marked Obsolete, and its reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ][RFC4331] This modification has already been reviewed and approved by a designated expert. Note: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-10-25): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, Tim Wicinski , dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-10-25): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, Tim Wicinski , dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status) to Proposed Standard Please note that this document was originally Last Called on 2019-09-18 as Informational -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/RmSJ_aEt_522jT9rqEYmALxCvag It was originally intended that the document text be copied into the status-change document -- but, that doesn't work, because we need a document to exist to actually update RFC 6698 and RFC 6840. So, this requires a second IETF LC, with the header noting that this updates RFC 6698 and RFC 6840, and with the document now being Std Track. The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-10-25. 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 This document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. Furthermore, this document updates RFC 6698 by excluding the DLV resource record from certificates, and updates RFC 6840 by excluding the DLV registries from the trust anchor selection. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc5074: DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) (Informational - IETF stream) rfc4431: The DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) DNS Resource Record (Informational - IETF stream) |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was changed |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Informational |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-10-11
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-10-09
|
01 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-10-09
|
01 | Matthijs Mekking | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-01.txt |
2019-10-09
|
01 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2019-10-03
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2019-09-26
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2019-09-26
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. |
2019-09-18
|
00 | Sabrina Tanamal | I have reviewed the document and it is fine, after the RFC is published the line should read DLV 32769 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (OBSOLETE) … I have reviewed the document and it is fine, after the RFC is published the line should read DLV 32769 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (OBSOLETE) [RFCXYZZ] [RFC4431] |
2019-09-18
|
00 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2019-09-18
|
00 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2019-09-18
|
00 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2019-09-17
|
00 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2019-09-17
|
00 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-09-17
|
00 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-00. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-00. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs registry on the Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/ the existing entry for Type: DLV Value: 32769 Meaning: DNSSEC Lookaside Validation Reference: RFC4331 Template: Registration Date: will be marked Obsolete. IANA Question --> Should the reference be changed to [ RFC-to-be ] or have [ RFC-to-be ] added to the existing RFC4331? As this document requests changes in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-09-09
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2019-09-09
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2019-09-06
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2019-09-06
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2019-09-05
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-09-05
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-09-18): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, Tim Wicinski , dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-09-18): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, Tim Wicinski , dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status' as Informational RFC Please note that this is primarily to support: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-dlv-to-historic and should be read with that. We are using option 2 of https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/ 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-09-18. 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 This document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Warren Kumari | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was changed |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | 1. Summary Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski Area Director: Warren Kumari Document Type: Document is Informational, but documents the moving of two standards to … 1. Summary Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski Area Director: Warren Kumari Document Type: Document is Informational, but documents the moving of two standards to HISTORIC. This document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. 2. Review and Consensus Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the working group and external parties, and explain in a general sense how much of the interested community is behind the document. Explain anything notable about the discussion of the document. Consensus was Brought and Solid. 3. Intellectual Property N/A 4. Other Points 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. N/A ----- 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? X Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified? X 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? N/A 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? |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-09-04
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-09-03
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2019-09-03
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Notification list changed to Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> |
2019-09-03
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Tim Wicinski |
2019-09-03
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | 1. Summary Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski Area Director: Warren Kumari Document Type: Document is Informational, but documents the moving of two standards to … 1. Summary Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski Area Director: Warren Kumari Document Type: Document is Informational, but documents the moving of two standards to HISTORIC. This document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. 2. Review and Consensus Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the working group and external parties, and explain in a general sense how much of the interested community is behind the document. Explain anything notable about the discussion of the document. Consensus was Brought and Solid. 3. Intellectual Property N/A 4. Other Points 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. N/A ----- 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? X Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified? X 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? N/A 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? |
2019-09-03
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2019-08-23
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-07-31
|
00 | Jenny Bui | This document now replaces draft-mekking-dnsop-obsolete-dlv instead of None |
2019-07-31
|
00 | Matthijs Mekking | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-00.txt |
2019-07-31
|
00 | (System) | Posted submission manually |
2019-07-26
|
00 | Matthijs Mekking | Uploaded new revision |