(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?
>> The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman,
>> <[email protected]>. I have reviewed this document, and I believe
>> it is ready for IETF-wide review and publication as a Proposed
>> Standard.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
>> This document has been reviewed and discussed extensively
>> among the AFS development community, as well as receiving
>> review within the IETF.
(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, I have no such concerns.
(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.
>> No, I have no such concerns.
(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?
>> I believe this document to represent the consensus of the
>> AFS community, both in its overall intent to introduce use
>> of SRV records to locate AFS database services and deprecate
>> use of AFSDB records for this purpose, and in the details of
>> its specification for how SRV RR's should be applied to AFS.
(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.)
>> There have been no expressions of discontent.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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 id-nits tool finds no problems with this document.
>> Additionally, I have verified that the document satisfies
>> those requirements not checked by the automatic tool.
>> Note that this document makes references to "AFS", which
>> is the name of a distributed filesystem product and protocol.
>> Historically, "AFS" was abbreviation for "Andrew File System",
>> but that designation has long since been dropped, and today
>> "AFS" is a proper name with no expansion.
(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].
>> References are properly split. This document, intended for the
>> standards track, contains a normative downreference to RFC1183,
>> an Experimental RFC which defines the AFSDB RR. The present
>> document deprecates the use of AFSDB records as describe in
>> RFC1183 for location of AFS database services, but in the name
>> of interoperability, recommends that cells advertising AFS
>> database services via SRV RR's also do so via AFSDB RR's when
>> possible.
(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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?
>> This document contains a logically empty IANA considerations
>> section. Because the names it uses for SRV record service
>> and proto fields have appeared in the port and protocol
>> registries for some time, no new IANA actions are needed.
(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?
>> This document contains an example zone file illustrating
>> the use of AFSDB records. This example zone was successfully
>> validated using BIND 9.5.0.
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document specifies how to use DNS (Domain Name Service) SRV RRs
(Resource Records) to locate services for the AFS distributed file
system and how the priority and weight values of the SRV RR should be
interpreted in the server ranking system used by AFS. It deprecates
use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell database servers and provides
guidance for backward compatibility.
Working Group Summary
This document represents the consensus of the AFS community to
deprecate the use of DNS AFSDB resource records to locate AFS
database services, as described in RFC1183, in favor of using SRV
records. While the AFS protocols themselves are not the subject
of any IETF work, this document is being advanced via the IETF
because it updates previous IETF extensions to the DNS.
Document Quality
Major AFS client implementors have indicated plans to implement
support for use of SRV records as described by this document.
In addition, a variety of developers and operators have indicated
a desire to publish and use SRV records as described here. There
was substantial discussion surrounding the mapping of weight and
priority information advertised via these records onto the server
ranking system used by current AFS implementations, which resulted
in the advice given in section 4.1.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
[ Normally, I'd also copy iesg-secretary on this, but in this case, I'm
omitting that, since the document has already gone fairly far through the
process, and a "publication requested" would just confuse things ].
- [AFS3-std] PROTO writeup for draft-allbery-afs-srv-recor... Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: [AFS3-std] PROTO writeup for draft-allbery-afs-... Jeffrey Hutzelman
