(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 draft, <draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12.txt>, aims
at "Informational" status and obsoletes RFC 4641, which has
the same status. The WG discussed BCP status but it was felt
that there is too little experience beyond root and TLD
operations to justofy "best". For the same reason, the
document tries to discuss practices and their tradeoffs
rather than giving strong recommendations. This is also
explained in the Introduction.
(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:
This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with
security extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is DNS zone
administrators deploying DNSSEC.
The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and
signatures in the DNS. It elaborates on issues of key generation,
key storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related tasks.
Working Group Summary
The draft started as an updated version of RFC 4641 in 2009
and and was updated through WG contributions up to
version -06 that got WGLC'ed in April 2011. Multiple
comments received during the WGLC as well as after this
were taken into account with the consent of the WG,
leading to version -12 as of today. No part of the document
was particluarly contentious, as the draft primarily discusses
tradeoffs in favor of making recommendations. That means
reasonable dissenting views could be and are reflected
in the document.
This draft is a definitive improvement over RFC 4641, which
it strives to replace. Various TLD and other zones'
DNSSEC practices are in line with, or within the boundaries
of this draft, that therefore reflects the collective wisdom
of those active operators who chose to contribute. The draft
received significant review within the WG as well as
attention outside the IETF.
Peter Koch is the document shepherd, Ron Bonica is the responsible AD.
(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 document shepherd reviewed this latest -12 version as well as previous
versions. NITS level review was applied and addressed in -12.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document has received widespread attention within the DNSOP WG
as well as outside the IETF. There are no concerns regarding the
depth or breadth of the review.
(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
As the draft talks about cryptographic parameters, such as DNSSEC
key sizes and algorithms, the input of experienced IETF attendees
with security and cryptographic background is highly appreciated.
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There is no IPR field against this draft as per
(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 behind the document is strong.
(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.)
(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
The draft passes the IETF ID nits checker
with two relevant warnings: RFC 2119 language is used only where the
draft quotes other RFCs, therefore the 2119 boilerplate was not used.
This is already addressed in the introduction.
The draft uses the boilerplate for pre-5378 work, because it is an
extended update of RFC 4641. Not all contributors to that RFC (as
per the extensive acknowledgement section) have been asked for permission.
Both WG chairs, including the shepherd, did independent nits reviews
for consistency, language and, well, nits. These have been addressed
in -08 and subsequent versions of the draft.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
All core DNS and DNSSEC RFCs are considered Normative. Other
RFCs, DNS or otherwise, as well as non-IETF documents are considered
(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?
(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.
(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.
This draft intends to obsolete RFC 4641 while maintaining Informational
status. This is refelected in the header as well as in the abstract
(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).
This document does neither request registrations nor define a IANA
registry. This is rightfully addressed in section 7 of the draft.
(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.
(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.
There is no such formal language. All DNS examples have been inspected
as appropriate and to the extent possible (DNSSEC signatures are
intentionally shortened) during the review process. State diagrams
in figures 1 through 15 have been reviewed manually.