Subject: [DNSOP] Publication request: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08

From: Stephen Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:55:46 +0100

Ron

This is a publication request for:

draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08.txt

The completed standard write-up template is appended.

Regards,

Stephen

===============================================================
PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08.txt
===============================================================

> (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 being proposed as an Informational RFC as it provides
a list of suggestions that zone operators may choose into include in
their DNSSEC Policy and/or DNSSEC Practice statement.

The type of RFC is stated in the document header.

> (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:
> 
> 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.

This document presents a framework to assist writers of DNSSEC
Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements, such as Domain Managers and
Zone Operators on both the top-level and secondary level, who are
managing and operating a DNS zone with Security Extensions (DNSSEC)
implemented.

In particular, the framework provides a comprehensive list of topics
that should be considered for inclusion into a DNSSEC Policy
definition and Practice Statement.

> 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?

No.  The discussions were relatively low-key.

> 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?

To assess the applicability and usefulness of the document, a survey
about DNSSEC policy and practice statements was conducted by the authors
amongst members of CENTR (Council of European National  Top Level Domain
Registries). Among the questions were some asking whether they had heard
about draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework (then at version -03).

Of the 19 respondents, 17 had heard about the draft and 13 had used it
as a check list of DNSSEC readiness and/or an outline to create such a
document.

> Personnel
> 
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area 
> Director?

Stephen Morris is the document shepherd.
Ron Bonica is the responsible Area Director.

> (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 content of the document has been reviewed a number of times by the
document shepherd during its development.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

> (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.

No

> (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.

There was a concern about a possible copyright issue, but only in
respect to a pre-RFC5378 RFC.  Parts of RFC 3647 have been used in the
draft, so the authors have contacted the authors of RFC 3647 requesting
permission to use text from it.  All who have replied (four out of five)
have given that permission.

> (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.

All authors have confirmed that there are no IPR issues.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

N/A

> (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?

The discussions took place between a limited number of individuals, with
seven people at WGLC formally supporting the document and believing it
should proceed.

> (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.)

No.

> (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.

No nits have been found in the document.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review 
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type 
> reviews.

N/A

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as 
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

> (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?

No.

> (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.

No.

> (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.

No.

> (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).

N/A - no IANA actions are required.

> (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.

N/A

> (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.

N/A