Shepherd writeup
rfc9082-03

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

The type of RFC being requested is Internet Standard.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 

Technical Summary:

This document addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors addressed the feedback in the latest draft. Finally, the WG members agreed about elevating the document to "Internet Standard" status considering that no substantial changes were made to RFC 7482 and the document included both significant and mature implementations.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. 

The document shepherd has reviewed the document in detail, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

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

No. The document has been carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns. 

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

N/A

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There was a strong WG consensus for the changes made to the existing RFC 7482 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft.

A second Extended WGLC was requested to review the maturity level of the document in order to elevate it from “Proposed Standard” to "Internet Standard” status according to the process described in RFC6410. In the first WGLC, the WG members had merely reviewed the document as "Proposed Standard" because it was not clear that the authors intended to propose it as "Internet Standard". 
The second WGLC that asked specifically for the review of the elevation requirements got a strong consensus which indicated strong support for the elevation of this document to “Internet Standard”

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The following ID nits have been found:

- there are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs;
- the normative reference I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis is outdated as a later version (-04) exists. However, since RFC7482bis and RFC7483bis reference each other, this ID nit will be fixed only during their publication;
- the normative reference Unicode-UAX15 is outdated as a later version (February 2020) exists.

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

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? 

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

Two downward normative references, namely RFC 952 and RFC 1166, are inherited from RFC 7482.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.
 
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document has no actions for IANA. 

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

The Document Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

N/A
Back