Subject: [dnsext] Publication request: IANA Considerations

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:53:59 -0400

Ralph,
DNSEXT has concluded its work on new DNS IANA Considerations
replacing RFC6195
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis/

Please start the publication process for it.
thanks
	Olafur

-- 
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

    BCP

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

    It specifies IANA Considerations for much of the DNS protocol and
    is obsoleting previous BCP RFC 6195.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

    Yes

(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

     This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
     parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name
     System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error
     codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record
     subtypes.

  Working Group Summary

     This document is to a large extent the same as its predecessor, but the
     working group has made some simplifications in process and these were
     not controversial. There is strong consensus behind this document.

  Document Quality

     There are many DNS implementations. This document is high quality
     due to reviews by a number of strong reviewers/experts including
     Alfred Hoenes and Mark Andrews.

  Personnel

     The document Shepherd is Olafur Gudmundsson [email-masked]
     Ralph Droms 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 Document Shepherd has reviewed all changes in the document
     from predecessor and made sure there was consensus for the
     changes. The document is ready to be published.

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

	None

(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.

    It is a DNS document but, since it has been processed through the
    DNSEXT WG, DNS review has been sufficient. As this document is a
    successor to previous BCP with few changes prior reviews should be
    sufficient.

(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.

	 None.

(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.

    Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

    No.

(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?

    Strong consensus.

(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.

    None

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

    No formal review required.

(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?

    There are normative references to

    (1) "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
    draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0, which is currently in IESG
    Consideration with one DISCUSS to clear, and

    (2) "Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis",
    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates, which is currently in IESG
    Consideration with one DISCUSS to clear.

(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?

    It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates four other DNS related RFCs.

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.

    All are listed in the abstract. Appendix B lists all changes from
    RFC 6195.

    Update to 1183 on AFSDB is the specification of AFSDB IANA
    considerations. Update to 2845 and 2930 is clarification that their
    "error" fields have values from the single unified DNS RCODE/error
    code point space.

(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).

    The whole document is IANA considerations, replacing existing
    guidance for IANA on a set of registries created for use by the DNS
    protocol.
    There are no new registries, the document closes one registry.

(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.

    No new registries.

(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.

    There are very simple regular expressions in Section 3.1 and 3.2
    that were reviewed by the WG. Changes to these regular expressions
    were suggested that were discussed, some rejected and some adopted.
    In particular, a suggestion to prohibit hyphens was rejected and a
    suggestion to simplify the prohibitory part, which had been
    (CLASS|RRTYPE)(0|[1-9][0-9]*), was accepted.