As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Intended status is Informational, as this document is a commentary on at least one standards track document (RFC 6761) and may inform future updates to standards but is itself only a problem statement, not a protocol or registry administration document.
(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:
The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761
has been shown through experience to present unanticipated
challenges. This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive,
of the problems that have been identified. In addition it reviews
the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications
and some publications from other organizations relating to Special-
Use Domain Names.
Working Group Summary
This document was the result of a decision in DNSOP to attempt to characterize the problems we actually face with special use names before attempting to analyze any of several proposals and contending beliefs about how to resolve them. The document has been a considerable time in the making but has WG consensus as a list of the relevant issues and challenges. As such, it can reasonably be the basis for future work in this area, whether it's within scope/charter for DNSOP or not.
The document summarizes many discussions and documents across DNSOP, the wider IETF, and other concerned communities to date.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Shepherd: Suzanne Woolf
Area Director: Benoit Claise (the OPS AD for DNSOP, Warren Kumari, is a co-author on this document)
(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 shepherd has reviewed multiple versions of this document throughout its history in the WG, and a competing document also put forward as a problem statement in the same space. This document seems like a reasonable introduction to the topic and the best we're likely to do for consensus. As such, it should go to the IESG and the IETF for approval and publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The topic of special use names has been in the WG for several years and some participants are weary of it. But this document received multiple careful reviews, before and during WGLC, and was discussed in a dedicated WG virtual interim meeting during the WGLC. So, no.
(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
The document was extensively reviewed within DNSOP and by several I* participants with relevant expertise. It would probably benefit from wider review, even beyond the IETF, but there was no easy way to do that within WG process; we're looking for ways to do it in IETF LC.
(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
This document was written and reviewed within the DNSOP WG, but both the interested WG participants and the wider IESG/IAB are well aware that the topic of special use names goes well beyond DNS as its scope, because it doesn't just encompass the use of domain names in the DNS protocol, and possible solutions will also have to be reviewed and discussed well beyond DNSOP. We'd like for this document to inform future work regardless of where in the IETF it occurs, however.
(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.
No such concerns known to any of the authors, or the WG chairs.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
Not all of the WG has been active on the topic, and of those who have, there's no consensus on what solutions to the identified problems might look like. But it has consensus as an initial description of the issues.
(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.)
The entire topic throughout its history in the WG has been fraught with discontent. But there has been no discussion of formal action, or of opposition specifically to this document, that has reached the chairs.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The "Nits" check on the draft page shows missing RFC 2119 boilerplate and some references nits (2 to obsolete RFCs). They all appear to be contained in quotes, or in the document discussion of history, so should probably be left alone.
(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?
There are no normative references in this document.
(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.
(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).
(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.