Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted and RFC 9537, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot discuss]
The Security Considerations states:

  Servers MAY exclude the redacted members for RDAP fields that are
  considered a privacy issue in providing a data existence signal.

This really seems like a 5th method of Redaction that should have its own
entry in Section 3. Or alternatively, should be documented in the 3.1 Section.
(as in, this is not a security consideration, but an explicit feature)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

May be this is not related to this document rather on JSONPath base document but should there be no internationalization considerations here? how much off the track I am on that ?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Hilarie Orman for the SECDIR review.

** Section 3.
  Redaction in RDAP can be handled in multiple ways.  The resulting
  redacted RDAP response MUST comply with the RDAP RFCs, such as
  [RFC9083].

This language of “comply with the RDAP RFCs” seems to too imprecise given the normative MUST.  Is there a way to be more precise?  Could this be scoped to “RFC9083 and updates”?

** Section 8.
  Servers MAY exclude the redacted members for RDAP fields that are
  considered a privacy issue in providing a data existence signal.

Could this please be expanded upon?  Is this practically saying if the fields are “sufficiently privacy sensitive” (where the existence of the data must not be revealed then) ignore the redaction mechanism in this draft?

** The SECDIR review thread (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/lqQBoljsw6aP2bgiVQOMzHBKpWU/) suggested additional language around a published redaction policy.  Recognizing the operational details noted in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/f3--V4Wfzk_m6cBGQCj-FTldRFM/, I would recommend adding an Operational Consideration sections saying something to the effect of:

NEW (rough text)
Operational Considerations

RDAP server operators MAY choose to publish a redaction policy describing how this extension is implemented for their constituency.  The contents of such a policy are outside the scope of this specification.

Experts have approved the RDAP Extensions registration and the RDAP JSON Values registration, with comments:
[SAH] I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this since both Andy and I have
reviewed this document during its development in the regext working group, but
I think I've found a small issue. RFC 9083 defines a set of "type" values for
use in the RDAP JSON values registry. draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted defines
three additional type values, which means it's updating RFC 9083 and the set
of type values allowed for use in the registry. The document needs to be clear
about the fact that it's updating 9083, which it doesn't currently do. This
would also mean that the registry itself will need to be update to note that
this RFC-to-be is one of the references that defines the structure of the
registry.

Having said that, the requested addition to the registry looks fine to me.

Scott

Doh! I did mentally recognize the extension of the registry but
neglected to think about the RFC mechanics.

I concur with Scott.

-andy

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about the second action requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the RDAP Extensions registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Extension Identifier: redacted
Registry Operator: Any
Specification: [ RFC-to-be ]
Contact: IESG
Intended Usage: This extension identifies the redacted fields in an RDAP response.

IANA Question --> Would it be acceptable to list the IETF as the change controller for the RDAP Extensions registration instead of the IESG? There has been a preference for doing so, as described in the expired document at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00, but it hasn’t been recorded in a permanent document yet.

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, Section 6.2 of the current draft appears to be in two sections. The first appears to request new registrations for three new RDAP JSON Values: redacted name, redacted reason, and redacted expression language. However, for these three types, registrant and reference information are omitted from Section 6.2. Then the draft provides a detailed registration request for JSON Value "jsonpath".

IANA Question --> Are redacted name, redacted reason, and redacted expression language to be registered in the RDAP JSON Values registry? If so, can Section 6.2 be redrafted to provide the full information needed for IANA to make those registrations in the registry, which will require expert review?

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-09-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andy@hxr.us, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted@ietf.org, gustavo.lozano@icann.org, regext-chairs@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Redacted Fields in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
  Response'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-09-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes an RDAP extension for specifying methods of
  redaction of RDAP responses and explicitly identifying redacted RDAP
  response fields, using JSONPath as the default expression language.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior.
Authors of the JSONPath document have reviewed this document and are aware of
The application of JSONPath with RDAP.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.

There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker. This document is Standards Track because it defines an extension to
an IETF protocol. The data tracker properly reflects the correct intended state.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All authors have responded that there are no IPR disclosure obligations necessary for this draft.

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.

All authors have agreed to be listed as an author.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

A re-sping of -13 is expected to address ID nits issues.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

This document should be processed in the publication process in parallel with JSONPath Base
(the dependency 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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior.
Authors of the JSONPath document have reviewed this document and are aware of
The application of JSONPath with RDAP.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.

There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker. This document is Standards Track because it defines an extension to
an IETF protocol.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All authors have responded that there are no IPR disclosure obligations necessary for this draft.

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.

All authors have agreed to be listed as an author.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

A re-sping of -13 is expected to address ID nits issues.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

This document should be processed in the publication process in parallel with JSONPath Base
(the dependency 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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior.
Authors of the JSONPath document have reviewed this document and are aware of
The application of JSONPath with RDAP.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.
There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All authors have responded that there are no IPR disclosure obligations necessary for this draft.

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.

All authors have agreed to be listed as an author.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

A re-sping of -13 is expected to address ID nits issues.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

This document should be processed in the publication process in parallel with JSONPath Base
(the dependency 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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior.
Authors of the JSONPath document have reviewed this document and are aware of
The application of JSONPath with RDAP.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.
There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All authors have responded that there are no IPR disclosure obligations necessary for this draft.

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.

All authors have agreed to be listed as an author.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

A re-sping of -13 is expected to address ID nits issues.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

This document should be processed in the publication process in parallel with JSONPath Base
(the dependency 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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior.
Authors of the JSONPath document have reviewed this document and are aware of
The application of JSONPath with RDAP.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.
There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All authors have responded that there are no IPR disclosure obligations necessary for this draft.

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.

All authors have agreed to be listed as an author.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

A re-sping of -13 is expected to address ID nits issues.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

This document should be processed in the publication process either in parallel with JSONPath Base
(the dependency 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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior.
Authors of the JSONPath document have reviewed this document and are aware of
The application of JSONPath with RDAP.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.
There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All authors have responded that there are no IPR disclosure obligations necessary for this draft.

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.

All authors have agreed to be listed as an author.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

A re-sping of -13 is expected to address ID nits issues.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior. To
my knowledge, the JSONPath WG is unaware of this application of JSONPath.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.
There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

All authors have responded that there are no IPR disclosure obligations necessary for this draft.

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.

All authors have agreed to be listed as an author.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

A re-sping of -13 is expected to address ID nits issues.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted

##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?

This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group
participants.

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

Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find
technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group
discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become
intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP
redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this
document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known
client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing
servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and
ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN
command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool
(https://lookup.icann.org/en).

## 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.

This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior. To
my knowledge, the JSONPath WG is unaware of this application of JSONPath.
Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test
the examples in this document.

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.
There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

YANG is not applicable to this document.

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.

Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used
available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples
in this document.

## 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?

It is the document shepherd's opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to
the responsible Area Director.

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

None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.

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

This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data
tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

Pending answers from authors.

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.

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

The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC
9083 on the next revision of the draft.

There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs
checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug
in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content
guidelines.

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

No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be
satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.

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

All normative references are IETF specifications.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

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?

There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in
AD Evaluation.

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.

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).

This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value
types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are
consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP
Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).

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.

There are none.

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted


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?
This document reached broad agreement with many reviews by working group participants.
  2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Consensus for this document was NOT particularly rough. Many reviewers did find technical errors with examples, but these have all been corrected. Working group discussions on other topics which were much more controversial did become intertwined with this document, but those other issues are not directly related to RDAP redaction. Such discussions did demonstrate the working groups attention to how this document fits into the larger architecture of RDAP.
      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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This document has one known, non-production server implementation, and no known client implementations. Many gTLD registries and registrars will be implementing servers with this specification for servers under a forth-coming ICANN policy, and ICANN has indicated its intention to implement this specification for its ICANN command line client (https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap) and web-based lookup tool (https://lookup.icann.org/en).
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.
This document uses the JSONPath Base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) specification, but does not modify any JSONPath behavior. To my knowledge, the JSONPath WG is unaware of this application of JSONPath. Participants of the REGEXT working group did use available JSONPath software to test the examples in this document.
              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.
There were no formal expert reviews sought or conducted for this document.
                  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?
YANG is not applicable to this document.
                    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.
Participants of the REGEXT working group, not just the document authors, used available tools such as the one available on at jsonpath.com to evaluate the examples in this document.
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?
It is the document shepherd’s opinion that this document is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.
                          10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?
None of the common issues appear to be relevant to this document.
                              11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
This document a Standards Track Proposed Standard, and is listed properly in the data tracker.
                                12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.
Pending answers from authors.
                                    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.
Pending answers from authors.
                                      14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The document has one reference to RFC 7483 that will be changed to the updated RFC 9083 on the next revision of the draft.
There is a stray non-ASCII character somewhere in the document according to the NITs checker. However, several of us have looked for it and cannot find it. This may be a bug in the NITS checker.

All other I-D Nits are false positives, and this document appears to meet the content guidelines.
                                          15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No. However, the informative reference to I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact will unlikely be satisfied by the time this document reaches the RFC editors queue.
                                            16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?
All normative references are IETF specifications.
                                                17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
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?
There is a normative reference to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-14) which is currently in AD Evaluation.
                                                      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.
                                                        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).
This document updates the existing IANA RDAP Value registry by adding 3 new value types, and registering a value for one of the new types. The IANA considerations are consistent with the technical details of the document, and the usage of the RDAP Values registry (this shepherd is one of the designated experts for the give registry).
                                                            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.
There are none.