JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-05

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. Due to lack of time, I only quickly browsed through this document but I appreciate the use of many IPv6 examples.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1.1 --
As noticed by others, please use BCP14 template.

-- Section 5.4 --
Please do not use a non-example network as in "https://example.net/ip/2001:c00::/23" but rather "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/32"

[Ballot comment]
I concur with Alissa's observation.  This is a "bis" document, after all.

Thanks for Section 11.

Section 10.1 is an update to an existing media type registration, not a new one.  Therefore:

* Shouldn't this become the referenced document?  Or is RFC 7483 still controlling for this registration?
* If the latter, should this section be deleted?
* If the former, should the registration still mention WEIRDS, or should it be updated to REGEXT?

[Ballot comment]
In a shocking turn of events, and which will likely come as a complete surprise at this point, this should list that it Obsoletes RFC 7483 :-)

[Ballot comment]
Should the errata against RFC 7483 in state "reported" be verified or
otherwise processed before this document gets approved?

My understanding (based on the draft name and shepherd writeup) is that
this document is intended to Obsolete: RFC 7483.  If so, that should be
indicated in the header, abstract, and introduction, as (in my
understanding) the Gen-ART reviewer pointed out.

Thank you for keeping the diff from RFC 7483 minimal -- that made things
very easy to read!  (FWIW, I do consider converting all the links to
the "https" scheme worth the churn; thank you for that as well.)

Some of the examples have gone stale, though (or were inaccurate from
the start), particularly with respect to the cryptographic digests and
algorithms used for DNSSEC.  I do not think that we can in good
conscience publish, in 2021, an Internet Standard that shows RSA/MD5
signatures as an example!  (Specifics in the editorial
section-by-section remarks.)

Also, for Section 1.1, RFC 8174 has an updated BCP 14 boilerplate text to
use.

It's probably worth making a pass through the examples to check for
cases where the handle "XXXX" is being used for distinct entities within
a single example (as that's not really self-consistent).

It may be worth noting in the security considerations that, while these
RDAP responses allow for retrieval of DNSSEC (key) related information,
(AFAICT) the RRSIG DS from the parent zone is not conveyed alongisde it.
This means that the DNSSEC keys retrieved by RDAP are disconnected from
their containing PKI, and as such are not generally expected to be
trusted without additional information.  In particular, just the HTTPS
channel protecting the RDAP connection is not expected to be authorized
to certify the validity of the DNSSEC keys.

The rest of my remarks are basically editorial or nit level, and I don't
expect specific responses to them.

Section 3

  Contact information is defined using jCards as described in
  [RFC7095].  The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null
  according to [RFC6350], where an empty "fn" member MAY be used when
  the contact name does not exist or is redacted.

(editorial) The way the last sentence is written suggests that [use of
empty "fn" when the name does not exist or is redacted] is a behavior
specified in RFC 6350, but based on text searches in RFC 6350 I suspect
that this statement is actually a clarification new to this document
about how the jCard format is being used.

Section 4.1

Going from 7483 to this document we now say that "rdapConformance" MUST
appear in the topmost JSON object of a response (vs "appears only" in
it).  Is the intent to forbid "rdapConformance" from appearing anywhere
else in addition to the topmost JSON object?  If so, the current text
seems insufficient to me.

Section 4.2

  The following is an example of the link structure:

      {
        "value" : "https://example.com/context_uri",
        "rel" : "self",
        "href" : "https://example.com/target_uri",

I am prone to confusing myself about RFC 8288 links, but it surprised me
that "href" differed from "value" for a relation of type "self".

  The JSON name/values of "rel", "href", "hreflang", "title", "media",
  and "type" correspond to values found in Section 3 of [RFC8288].  The
  "value" JSON value is the context URI as described by [RFC8288].  The
  "value", "rel" and "href" JSON values MUST be specified.  [...]

Looking just at the diff from RFC 7483 makes it seem that we gain a
MUST-level requirement for the "rel" value to be specified, which would
not normally be allowed in a transition to Internet Standard.  However,
it seems that RFC 8288 itself requires the presence of "rel", so this is
not in practice a new requirement, and thus safe.

Section 4.5

I think it's vCard that has a LANGUAGE property; in jCard that would be
the "language" key.

Section 5.1

[I did not attempt to validate that the jCards contained in any of the
examples conform to RFC 7095.]

  and names of organizations and individuals.  Many of the types of
  information that can be represented with jCard have no use in RDAP,
  such as birthdays, anniversaries, and gender.

(nit) I suggest s/no use/little or no use/, just on my instinct of
avoiding absolutes when not needed.  ("Only a Sith deals in absolutes",
right?)

  The following is an elided example of an entity with embedded
  entities.

(nit) I'd suggest "abbreviated" or "condensed" instead of "elided",
which as written would seem to imply that the entire example is omitted.
This applies to more than one instance, but I will only mention it once.

Section 5.3

      -  idnTable -- the name of the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN)
        table of codepoints, such as one listed with the IANA (see IDN
        tables [IANA_IDNTABLES]).

(nit) the definite article "the" in "the [IDN] table of codepoints"
implies that the context should indicate which one we are referring to
(perhaps the one used in the variant names?), but I am failing to tell
from context which table is being indicated.

          "keyTag": 12345,
          "algorithm": 3,
          "digestType": 1,
          "digest": "49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC"

Could we maybe use SHA-256 for the example instead of the
no-longer-safe-for-general-use SHA-1 (so, digest type 2 instead of 1,
and corresponding digest length)?  [Hmm, the existing SHA-1 example is
20 hex digits, which is only 80 bits, not the full 160-bit SHA-1
output...]
Likewise for the signature algorithm (algorithm 3 is DSA/SHA-1, and
there are lots of stronger alternatives listed at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml)

            "flags": 257,
            "protocol": 3,
            "algorithm": 1,
            "publicKey": "AQPJ////4Q==",

Similarly, the key data here indicates the algorithm 1, or RSA/MD5 which
is deprecated.  (The public key is also a laughably small 40-bit
modulus when decoded.  A nice strong Ed25519 key, algorithm 15, would
not expand the example unreasonably in my opinion.)

        "eventAction" : "expiration",
        "eventDate" : "2016-12-31T23:59:59Z",
        "eventActor" : "joe@example.com"

(side note) Perhaps an expiration in the future is more useful as an
example, though it is clearly not wrong to list the expiration event
even when it is in the past.

Section 5.5

  The following is an example of a JSON object representing an autnum.

  {
    "objectClassName" : "autnum",
    "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
    "startAutnum" : 10,
    "endAutnum" : 15,

IIUC AS numbers 10 through 15 are assigned by ARIN, including AS 11 that
is assigned to Harvard University (last updated 2019-08-12) and appears
to be in current use.  Perhaps the reserved ASN 0 would make for a safer
example?

    [...]
    "links" :
    [
      {
        "value" : "https://example.net/autnum/xxxx",
        "rel" : "self",
        "href" : "https://example.net/autnum/xxxx",
        "type" : "application/rdap+json"

Hmm, my reading of 7482bis suggests that the bit after /autnum/ should
be an actual AS number, not a handle.  But it doesn't seem to give much
guidance on how to represent a block of AS numbers as opposed to a
single one within a block...

  *  type -- a string containing an RIR-specific classification of the
      autnum

(nit) is this the RIR's classification of the number itself, or the
allocation/registration?

Section 10

I think that sometimes we see "-bis" documents that just say "IANA has
updated the registrations made by RFCXXXX to refer to this document",
but I don't particularly mind repeating the registration information in
the now-primary reference document.

Section 10.1

      Published specification: RFC 7483

Presumably we want this updated to the rfc-to-be?

Section 10.2.4

      Description: The entity object instance represents a third party
      through which the registration was conducted (i.e. not the
      registry or registrar).

(nit/side-note) I am pretty sure the RFC Editor is going to add the
comma back after "i.e." (but expect that leaving it for them to do will
cause the right thing to happen).  Perhaps we should ask IANA and the
RFC Editor to get on the same page...

Section 13.1

  The default text encoding for JSON responses in RDAP is UTF-8
  [RFC3629], and all servers and clients MUST support UTF-8.

(I note that UTF-8 preference is one of the things that changed from RFC
7159 to RFC 8259, so this may be redundant now.  I didn't think about it
very hard and don't expect anyone else to, as there's no harm in leaving
it alone.)

Section A.1

  The following is an elided example of a registrant with information
  changed to reflect that of a third party.

  {
    ...
    "entities" :
    [
      {
        "objectClassName" : "entity",
        "handle" : "XXXX",
        ...
        "roles" : [ "registrant", "administrative" ],
        "status" : [ "proxy", "private", "obscured" ]

(editorial) it might be nice to show a little more, so that we can
contrast "Joe User" with "Anonymizing Proxy Service" (or whatever).

Section A.1

            ["email",
              { "type":"work" },
              "text", "joes_fish_chips_and_domains@example.com"

I wonder if the 'example' TLD might be more apropos for this case (e.g.,
support@joes-fish-chips-domains.example).  (The link might be altered
similarly as well.)

Section D

  DNSSEC provides data integrity for DNS through the digital signing of
  resource records.  [...]

It also provides source authenticity, which is equally important.

[Ballot comment]
[[ comments ]]

[ section 5.4 ]

*
  It seems a shame that the startAddress/endAddress keys are used with IPv6
  prefixes.  I do wish there could be some cidrBlock key instead.

  Oh well.
 


[[ questions ]]

[ section 4.5 ]

* Is there a formal constraint on the format of string values of
  "eventDate"?  If so, is it called out somewhere?

  All the examples are of a very obvious, specific format...but is that
  required?

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for this update to RFC 7483.

A couple of minor comments:

In section 5.2.  The Nameserver Object Class:  It might be helpful to warn the reader that some lines have been wrapped for display purposes.  E.g. the link value and href.  Alternative, the approach/tooling from RFC 8792 could be used.

It also wasn't clear to me whether the Appendix "Changes from RFC 7483" was going to be kept - there is no RFC editor note to suggest that it be removed.

Generally, I think that have a short section explaining how a RFC has changed from a previously published version is helpful.  But if this is kept, then I would try and condense this text down to just the list of important changes from RFC 7483.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Rich Salz for the SECDIR review, and the discussion around it is appreciated.

** Section 3. handle.  Per “This value is a simple string”, is this making a statement about the JSON data type?  I didn’t follow what this clarification added on top of the original text in RFC7483.

** Section 3.  Editorial.
OLD
The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null
  according to [RFC6350], where an empty "fn" member MAY be used when
  the contact name does not exist or is redacted.

NEW
The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null according to [RFC6350].  An empty "fn" member MAY be used when the contact name does not exist or is redacted.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the RDAP JSON Values registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/

we'll update the following registration:

OLD:

Value: transfer
Transfer: event action
Description: The object instance was transferred from one registrant to another.
Registrant: [IESG]
Reference: [RFC7483]

NEW:

Value: transfer
Transfer: event action
Description: The object instance was transferred from one
registrar to another.
Registrant: [IESG]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, we'll replace all the references to RFC 7483 in the Media Types and RDAP JSON Values registries located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/

If that's incorrect, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-02-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Jasdip Singh , barryleiba@gmail.com, draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis@ietf.org, jasdips@arin.net, regext-chairs@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)'
  as Internet 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 2021-02-08. 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 JSON data structures representing
  registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries
  (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs).  These data structures are
  used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query
  responses.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc3339: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc4034: Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc5396: Textual Representation of Autonomous System (AS) Numbers (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7095: jCard: The JSON Format for vCard (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7480: HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7481: Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc8288: Web Linking (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)

(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 requested RFC type is Internet Standard.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial vis-à-vis the updates that were made to the document. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft. No real fundamental changes were made to the document as the changes were only meant to update the maturity level of the document to Internet Standard.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

(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 the 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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and hence are not included.

A second Extended WGLC was needed for the WG participants to review the maturity level of the document to be elevated according to RFC 6410. In the first WGLC, the WG participants had only reviewed the changes made to the document, but it was unclear if the elevation requirements were reviewed. The second WGLC that asked specifically for the review of the elevation requirements got a strong consensus which indicated a strong support for elevating 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 nits verification tool returns with couple of warnings. The first warning is for non-ASCII characters but these characters are needed because those examples are for IDN U-labels. The other warning is about text in the update log.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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 7483.

RFC 7483 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7483 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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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

(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?

Standards Track since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. Yes, this draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

(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 the 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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and hence are not included.

(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 nits verification tool returns with couple of warnings. The first warning is for non-ASCII characters but these characters are needed because those examples are for IDN U-labels. The other warning is about text in the update log.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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 7483.

RFC 7483 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7483 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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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

(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?

Standards Track since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. Yes, this draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

(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 the 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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and hence are not included.

(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 nits verification tool returns with couple of warnings. The first warning is for non-ASCII characters but these characters are needed because those examples are for IDN U-labels. The other warning is about text in the update log.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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 7483.

RFC 7483 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7483 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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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

(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?

Standards Track since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. Yes, this draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

(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 the 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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and hence are not included.

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

No

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

None found.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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 7483.

RFC 7483 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7483 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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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

(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?

Standards Track since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. Yes, this draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) and DNRs (Domain Name Registries/Registrars) have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

(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 the 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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and hence are not included.

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

No

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

None found.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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 7483.

RFC 7483 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7483 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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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

(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?

Standards Track since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. Yes, this draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive feedback and nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

(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 the 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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and hence are not included in the draft.

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

No

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

None found.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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 7483.

RFC 7483 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7483 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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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

(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?

Standards Track since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. Yes, this draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive feedback and nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

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

No

(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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

N/A

(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not in the draft.

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

No

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

None found.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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 7483.

(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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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

(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?

Standards Track since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. Yes, this draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

(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 describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.

Working Group Summary:

There was constructive feedback and nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasdips@arin.net)
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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.

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

No

(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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

N/A

(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 is a strong WG consensus for RDAP to be on standards track, including this document.

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

No

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

None found.

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

The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.

(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.

None

(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.

No

(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).

The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).

Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).

(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).

(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