[dnsext] [ajs@shinkuro.com: Request for publication: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22]
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Fri, 20 May 2011 21:11 UTC
Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55483E0762; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A874E0797 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KN1gr4z1ZMvy for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328E7E070E for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 14:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B8E61ECB420 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 21:11:18 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:11:17 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110520211117.GQ491@shinkuro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: [dnsext] [ajs@shinkuro.com: Request for publication: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22]
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Dear colleagues, I have requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname. I will update the status of the document to reflect our request. Thanks to the editors of the document for their long work. Best, Andrew (document shepherd) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc.
--- Begin Message ---Dear Ralph, This is a request for publication of the draft draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22.txt on the Standards Track. This document is an update to RFC 2672 and if published will render that RFC obsolete. This draft does not advance DNAME on the standards track under the procedures of RFC 2026; its intended status is as Proposed Standard. At a later time, when the current situation with respect to the standards track is clearer, we will undertake advancement. As required by RFC 4858, below is the completed current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. --- begin PROTO write-up. --- This is the completed Document Shepherd Write-Up as required by RFC 4858 for the draft draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22. This template was completed 2011-05-04. The template version is dated September 17, 2008. (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? Andrew Sullivan is the Document Shepherd. He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready. (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 part of the DNSEXT work for a number of years. It is on version 22; the -00 was published in 2006. It has been through several lengthy discussions on the WG mailing list. Recent calls for any additional comments did not result in any new work. (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? There was at least one WG participant who maintained privately that he could not support the document publicly, because he believes it introduces a subtle incompatibility; but that he was not willing to object publicly. The shepherd sought elaboration of this critique, but (1) it wasn't forthcoming and (2) nobody else made it. (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? Yes. Note that the complaint about NOT RECOMMENDED & 2119 isn't quite true: the phrase is only in the document in order to update a different document that already uses that phrase. (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]. The references are so split, and everything is correct. (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? Yes. There is a request to update an existing registry. It is identified. (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 The DNS DNAME RRTYPE redirects subtrees of the domain name space. This memo updates the original specification found in RFC 2672. It also aligns RFC 3363 and RFC 4294 with the revision. Working Group Summary The DNS Extensions Working Group has spent a considerable amount of time on this document. It is the product of extended revie--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
- [dnsext] [ajs@shinkuro.com: Request for publicati… Andrew Sullivan