Subject: [DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational) for <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-06.txt>

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:18:11 +0200

Ron,

hope you are doing well.  This is the first of a series of three requests
for publication of output of the DNSOP WG. These documents cross reference
each other and should preferrably proceed in a bundle. Requests have been
split for easier processing.

Best regards,
    Peter

=============================================================================
This is a PROTO write up and Request for Publication as INFORMATIONAL for
"AS112 Nameserver Operations", <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-06.txt>.
=============================================================================

  (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 and believes that this document is ready for publication.

  (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 been reviewed by a number of WG members who have expressed
explicit support for the document.  Operators of AS112 nodes have been
regularly informed about the draft and changes applied.
There are no concerns as to the depth or breadth of reviews.

  (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?

No.

  (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? 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

No.

  (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?

Only a few WG members have participated in the discussions, but the
consensus of those members has been strong.

  (1.f) 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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The nits checker warns about a number of IP addresses and domain names.
However, these are meant literally and not as an example and thus are
rightfully mentioned in the document.

The checker also reports an outdated reference to an Internet Draft
(draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones).  The updated version of this document
has been posted without any changes and a publication request will be sent
after this one.

  (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? If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes.  There are references to two other documents that are being submitted to
the IESG at the same time (draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-help-help and
draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones).

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists it documents an address assignment
and a domain name delegation under IANA.ORG that both date way back
before the work on this document started.
This document does not make any new requests to IANA.

  (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
        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
        or introduction.

Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses which
are not globally unique.  Examples are the addresses designated in
RFC1918 for private use within individual sites.

Hosts should never normally send DNS reverse mapping queries for
those addresses on the public Internet.  However, such queries are
frequently observed.  Authoritative servers are deployed to provide
authoritative answers to such queries as part of a loosely-coordinated
effort known as the AS112 project.

This document provides background information and technical advice to
those firewall operators.

     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?

The working group was supportive of this and the associated AS112 operations
document.  Nothing particularly controversial came up.

     Document Quality
        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?

This document reflects current practice and operational reality.
AS112 nodes are wiedely deployed.
=============================================================================

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 22:12:13 +0200

On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:18:11AM +0200,
 Peter Koch <[email-masked]> wrote 

> "AS112 Nameserver Operations", <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-06.txt>.

Funny but, as reported on OARC's dns-operations, at this time, ARIN
name servers had already drop 168.192.in-addr.arpa....

% dig @x.arin.net NS 168.192.in-addr.arpa.

; <<>> DiG 9.7.2-P3 <<>> @x.arin.net NS 168.192.in-addr.arpa.
; (2 servers found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 17956
...

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:18:42 +0200

Stephane,

thanks for the heads up.

> name servers had already drop 168.192.in-addr.arpa....

pending detailed information all we can say is that these undelegations
were accidental rather than deliberate. The delegations have been re-
instantiated and their temporary absence should not be interpreted as
a statement in the direction of AS112.  If you think there is anything
for this WG to do w.r.t. the draft mentioned above, please feel free
to elaborate.

-Peter