(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?
Proposed Standard. This is indicated in the header, and is appropriate for the 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:
Classic mDNS and DNS-SD only operate across the scope of a single link. There is thus a challenge in service discovery for multi-link networks, from home networks through to large enterprises or campuses. This document specifies a type of proxy called a "Multicast Discovery Proxy" (or just "Discovery Proxy") that uses Multicast DNS to discover Multicast DNS records on its local link, and makes corresponding DNS records visible in the Unicast DNS namespace. Host queries are forwarded to proxies on remote links which perform multicast resolution of those queries, returning unicast answers. Hosts may use LLQ or DNS Push for queries, to subscribe to DNS updates to obtain timely information. Other optimisations are described in other WG documents.
Working Group Summary:
The draft moved fairly smoothly through various iterations. Until late in the process it was referred to the Hybrid Proxy, hence the draft file name, but it was then renamed the Discovery Proxy to allow the potential for a future Advertising Proxy to be defined with a clear, distinct purpose.
The appendix describes existing implementation status, which includes at least three (part) implementations. There is interest amongst multiple vendors to take the work forward, beyond just Apple. There has been a good number of reviews performed on the document over the past year or so, and there has been close cooperation with the DNSOP WG through Tim and Suzanne on the DNS Push and DNS Session Signal drafts that the Proxy can benefit from.
Tim Chown is the document shepherd (and co-chair of the WG), and Terry Manderson 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 IESG.
As WG chair I have followed the draft through its development, and am thus familiar with it. I have read the final version of the document and am satisfied that it is ready for publication.
The -07 version fixed the one remaining nit, which was the reference to “.home” in the document, which was replaced with “.home.arpa”.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The document has been reviewed by a number of experienced IETF contributors through its development.
(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. The DNS Push and related DNS Session Signalling drafts have been produced collaboratively with the DNSOP WG.
(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.
No concerns. The document is perhaps a little hard to read at first for those not familiar with certain aspects of DNS-SD. Given the IETF documents can now include higher quality diagrams, an overview diagram of the querying hosts, authoritative name servers, proxies and services in links, with indicated DNS delegations, might be helpful for a new reader. But this is not required.
(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?
Yes, but see below.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes. The disclosure was https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/, but it is reported as “removed at the submitter’s request”. This was done in error (when removing the errant disclosure on the DNS-SD Requirements draft). Apple are in the process of having the disclosure restored; we expect this to be resolved soon, and will report the resolution to the WG to ensure the WG supports the resolution.
(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?
There is strong consensus to publish the document, as verified in the IETF97 meeting (along with the Discovery Proxy name change). The document probably hasn’t been that widely read, but there have been a good number of relatively expert reviews undertaken.
(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 thorough.
There is a small number of minor nits (3 warnings and 0 comments). I’m not convinced that the warnings on non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs and non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses are real. The outdated draft reference (for draft-ietf-homenet-dot-07) can easily be fixed in the final version.
(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?
(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?
Yes, DNS Push - draft-ietf-dnssd-push-12 - which is being submitted to the IESG very soon (in shepherd write-up stage with Tim Wickinski).
DNS Push in turn has a dependency on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03, which is being progressed in the DNSOP WG. The -03 version was published this week. The DNSOP chairs are determining whether to continue to progress the session signal work ‘as is’, in which case we might expect publication soon, or whether a more board review of the approach is required, which would add a not insignificant delay.
Ideally all three documents would be published together.
(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).
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.
(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.