Subject: [DNSOP] Request to Publish "Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance" (draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-08.txt)

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:37:29 +0100

Dear ADs,

this is a request to publish

  Title    : Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance
  Author(s): D. Conrad, S. Woolf
  Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-08.txt
  Pages    : 13
  Date     : 2007-2-16

as an Informational RFC. Please find below the proto questionnaire.

-Peter

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

	Peter Koch is the document shepherd for this document, has
	read the latest version (-08) of the draft and, yes, I believe
	it is ready for consideration by the IESG.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

	The document has received much attention before and after the
	WGLC (see Acknowledgements section).  There are no concerns regarding
	the breadth or depth of the review.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

	This document lists current practice and operational requirements
	and has seen contributions from both vendors and operators.
	There are no concerns of lack of review.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?

	There are no such issues. Noone raised any IPR issues.

   (1.e)  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?

	After the WGLC for -04 there were several reviews posted by
	Pekka Savola, Bruce Campbell, Brett Carr, Daniel Senie,
	Olaf Kolkman, and Andrew Sullivan.  
	There was some discussion whether or not the documentation
	of the DNS RR based identification convention should appear
	together with the requirements. The WG consensus was to
	keep both parts in one document since the disadvantages of the
	old method were considered a good start and motivation for
	setting the requirements for a standardized scheme.

	Subsequent versions of the draft incorporated WGLC and post WGLC
	comments as well as nits review issues.

	There is a good WG consensus behind this document.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?

	I am not aware of any such threat or indication.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).

	This document has passed the online ID nits tool and has also been
	checked in multiple cycles of proofreading.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?

	This document has split references and the document shepherd believes
	the assignments are appropriate. There are no downward references.
	There is one I-D listed as an Informational reference, pointing
	to draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-02.txt, which is currently waiting for
	this document to be processed.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?

	This document does not request any IANA action. As a coincidence,
	one of the editors is a member of IANA staff, so there is strong
	belief IANA issues received due attention.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

	N/A

   (1.k)  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:

          Technical Summary

	This document explains a current convention for identifying
	a particular name server out of a set of servers in an anycast
	cloud or behind a load balancer. It explains key disadvantages
	of this practice and discusses a set of requirements for an
	improved mechanism.

          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
             rough?

	This document evolved from a purely documenting informational
	draft into a requirements document after the WG determined that
	a single dedicated DNS based information query had operational
	disadvantages.  There was some discussion about splitting the
	documentation part and the requirements part, but the WG decided
	to keep it as is.

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?

	The DNS RR based convention as documented in this draft has been
	supported by multiple vendors of DNS server software.

	The dnsext WG has produced "DNS Name Server Identifier Option (NSID)",
	<draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-02.txt>, which took into account the
	requirements laid out in this draft.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?

	Document Shepherd: Peter Koch
	Responsible AD:    David Kessens

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop