Shepherd writeup
rfc7626-06

(1) Informational.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Technical Summary:

This document describes the privacy issues associated with the use of
the DNS by Internet users. It is an attempt at a comprehensive and accurate
list, but does not prescribe solutions.

Working Group Summary:

There was no controversy or serious disagreement.
The document went through the WG smoothly, and with agreement that it
is useful.

Document Quality:
The document describes the privacy implications of sending DNS queries 
in the clear. It provides some introductory information, discusses the
risks, and dispels some myths. While problem statement documents are
often viewed as a waste of time, this particular one has been very
useful, to help get everyone on the same page. 


Personnel:

Warren Kumari will be the document shepherd, Brian Haberman is the AD.

(3) The Document Shepherd has read, provided feedback and followed the document though its life cycle, and believes it is ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Nope.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective.
Nope.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has.
None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required.
Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
Nope.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
Strong consensus, with good participation.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
Nope. Motherhood and apple pie.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. 
None - the nit checker says: Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 720
It *is* a reference, perhaps it could be clarified - a job for the RFC Editor.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes. There are many, mostly 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?
None.


(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.
No.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? 
No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section:
" This document has no actions for IANA. ". I checked that many times.
It is correct, and spelt correctly as well. It's even in a pretty font (Sorry, this joke never gets old... well to me at least...)


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations.
None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
None needed.
Back