---
# System prepended metadata

title: Untitled

---

** Last updated: 2022-05-10 **

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The WG consensus represents the strong concurrence of the interested individuals, with others being silent.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Directorate reviews were quickly addressed.  The most contentious discussions were on the topics of geofencing/CDN.  Also, the strategy of coupling MUD controller duties and name resolution duties in the context DNS caching and lookup duties to detect record expiration underwent a somewhat rough decision making process.  In general, using names in ACLs is a somewhat contentious topic that exceeds the scope of MUD.
As a compromise to provide useful guidance, "failing" and "successful" strategies (that still can fail) are illustrated in detail.  A few controversial discussions that did not show a clear consensus during document evolution did not come up again in the WGLC.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

While this document's intended status is BCP, it is guidance for RFC 8520, which has several implementations and starter tools, such as https://mudmaker.org/

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place.

Yes, DNSOPS was involved and quite a lot of their input manifested in document changes. 

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not include such content.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not include such content.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document does not include such content.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The assembled OPS area topics do not apply.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Best Current Practice, which is the right track for this document.  The DT attributes and tags seem appropriate.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
    
XXX FIX ME XXX

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The documents has two authors that have shown their willingness to be listed and no additional contributors are listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

One checklist nit refers to a non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN (which could be false positive).
There is some lint, such as unused references, and there are potential downrefs indicated for RFC 1794, RFC 8094, and RFC 9019 that need investigation, see 15.
There are two outdated references that should be easy to fix.
In total there are 4 errors, 4 warnings, and 4 comments.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I am rather certain that:
* [Akamai] "Akamai", , <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies>,
* [AmazonS3] "Amazon S3", , <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_S3>,
* as well as RFC 1794, RFC 8094, and RFC 9019

should not be normative references.
(Note that RFC 1794 is cited as a description of a common operational approach, not as part of the Best Current Practice recommended by this document.)
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-07 probably can stay in the normative section, if clustered; it is cited as additional information though, so can be dropped to informative if the document gets stuck.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No such references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
    
(With the changes outlined above, no.)

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Somewhat yes: dnsop-terminology-ter -> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-07 probably can stay in the normative section (see above).

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
    
No status change is intended.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The authors need to add an empty IANA cons section.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
    
None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/