(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 document is intended as an Informational RFC. Informational is indicated in the title page header. The document describes a series of potential privacy issues that should be considered by operators, developers, and users of the DNS. The document does not describe protocol operations or recommendations for operating or using the DNS. As such, Informational is the proper type.
(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 the privacy issues associated with the use of
the DNS by Internet users. It is intended to be an analysis of the
present situation and does not prescribe solutions. This document
obsoletes RFC 7626.
Working Group Summary:
As privacy aspects differ between readers, there was significant discussions over what issues warranted mention in the document, especially as a -bis document. The resulting content represents the key aspects that the WG felt was important to document on privacy matters related to DNS.
This document received a number of reviews from a variety of stakeholder communities. The shepherd considers the document solid and worthy of publication.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Brian Haberman
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Éric Vyncke
(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.
The document shepherd performed two types of reviews of the document. The first review focused on the process-related aspects of publishing
an RFC, including the existence of any nits. The document is structured accordingly for an Informational document. There are two issues
related to the -02 version of the draft that can be fixed when necessary. The draft does not currently contain an IANA Considerations
section. However, the document makes no requests of IANA and the section would be removed prior to final publication as an RFC. The document
also contains references to three drafts that have been revised since the publication of this version of the draft. Those will be rectified
when an updated version of this draft is published.
The second review performed on the document focused on assessing that all comments and issues raised during the WG process were addressed.
The shepherd reviewed all comments made during the WGLC as well as comments raised on the mailing list during development of the draft.
The shepherd is comfortable that the authors addressed all issues raised within the WG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
As this is a revision of an existing RFC focused on privacy issues, it would be beneficial to have someone with an in-depth knowledge
of privacy issues to review the document before/during IETF Last Call.
(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.
(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 disclosures.
(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 strong consensus within the WG for the contents of this document.
(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.
As noted in (3), this document does not currently contain an IANA Considerations section, but none is needed. The document also
references three drafts that have newer versions published since the publication of this draft.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG 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?
(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 document obsoletes RFC 7626. The header correctly identifies that action as does the Abstract. That information is not in the Introduction.
(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 8126).
(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, YANG modules, etc.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?