Shepherd writeup

1. Summary

Document Shepherd:  Tim Wicinski
Area Director:      Terry Manderson

Document Type:      Experimental

This document proposes the use of Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) for DNS, to protect against passive listeners and certain
active attacks.  As latency is critical for DNS, this proposal also
discusses mechanisms to reduce DTLS round trips and reduce DTLS
handshake size.

The working group chose Experimental over Proposed Standard because
the authors have indicated they are not willing to attempt
implemntating this, nor have they attempted to find anyone to
implement this.

While the working group confirmed publication, this document
shepherd (and working group co-chair) is conflicted.  The lack of
implementation anytime in the near future means this will get
published but never actually used. While the working group does not
see this as a problem, I feel it sets a bad precedent.

2. Review and Consensus

The document was reviewed very heavily by the working group, and c
compared to the previous document DNS-over TLS

The working group made several requests which the authors performed.
The biggest one was the removal of the Authenication profiles and
placed in a separate document  draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-
profiles   which is currently working through the working group and
is slated for last call.

The consensus was positive on adopting and publishing this draft,
and the working group did not have many comments about the lack of

3. Intellectual Property

The authors stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR
related to this document has already been disclosed.

4. Other Points

There are no downward references in this document.

Currently, the document lists ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles as
an Informative Reference, but lists it as a MUST in section 3.2.
Because of this, the shepherd feels this could be listed as a
normative reference, though the document is Experimental.

There is currently no Implementation Section, as needed for
Experimental drafts.  The authors have stated they will not attempt
any implementations.

IANA Considerations:
    There are no IANA Considerations


- 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

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?

X - If this is a "bis" document, have all of the errata been