Subject: [DNSOP] Publication Request (Informational+FYI) for <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-05.txt>

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:34:07 +0200

Ron,

this is the second of a series of three requests for publication of
AS112/RFC1918 related documents of the DNSOP WG.  Please note that
we ask for publication as Informational in the FYI series for this draft.

Regards,
  Peter

=============================================================================
This is a PROTO write up and Request for Publication as INFORMATIONAL and FYI for
"I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!", <draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-05.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. This document is for end user consumption
and has been exposed to that target audience occasionally with positive
feedback regarding its content and comprehensibility.
There are no concerns as to the depth or breadth of reviews, but we are looking
forward to the GenART review in particular.

  (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 overwhelmingly positive.

  (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-ops 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 for explanatory purposes only
and should remain in the document. The document itself does not
make any requests of IANA.

        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.

Since queries sent to AS112 servers are usually not intentional, the
replies received back from those servers are typically unexpected.
Unexpected inbound traffic can trigger alarms on intrusion detection
systems and firewalls, and operators of such systems often mistakenly
believe that they are being attacked.

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 is for end user consumption.

=============================================================================