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?
>> Proposed Standard
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>> This document updates RFC 7788 (Home Networking Control Protocol),
>> eliminating the recommendation for ".home" as the default top-level
>> name for name resolution within a homenet and replacing it with
>> ".home.arpa." per the RFC 6761 process.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>> The working group was strongly opposed to the idea of redacting the
>> ".home" TLD without a replacement TLD requested at the same time.
>> Upon granting of ".home.arpa." the open source homenet reference
>> implementation will be updated accordingly (but not before, as
>> removing the default TLD with no replacement would result in a
>> non-working system).
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
>> Existing open source implementations of the HNCP protocol do contain
>> the originally specified ".home" value, but it is expected that they
>> will change to ".home.arpa." on approval
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
>> Ray Bellis is the document shepherd. 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 document shepherd considers the document ready for publication
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>> No major concerns, although engagement within the WG has dropped and
>> reviews of the later versions (following the directive to change from
>> the intended application for ".homenet" to ".home.arpa") have been
>> hard to come by.
(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 documents have been seen by many people with a particular
>> interest in special-use domain names. It’s not anticipated that any
>> further specific reviews are required.
(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
>> I have a minor concern over whether the suggestion to use "example"
>> blackhole servers of BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG
>> is concrete enough and whether an explicit request to the AS112
>> operators should be made.
(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.
>> There are no IPR declarations filed yet, but they can be requested if
>> required. The document shepherd believes in any event that there is
>> nothing in the document that could give rise to an IPR claim, with the
>> document being an relatively straight-forward application of IETF process.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>> There have been no IPR disclosures for these documents. The chairs
>> are unaware of any IPR for these documents.
(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?
>> A number of procedural options have been considered, and current WG
>> consensus could be described as as rather strong for: "if we must do
>> something to eliminate the use of .home as specified in RFC 7788, this
>> is the path we prefer".
(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.)
>> There are no concerns in this regard
(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
>> No ID nits found
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
>> Not applicable
(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.
>> The document updates RFC 7788, and the headers and text are
>> clear on this. HNCP is referenced by name but not by number in the
(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).
>> See (6) above
(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.
>> There are no new registries created
(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.
>> not applicable