(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?
This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
The status has been chosen as this documents describes one specific implementation of the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) function.
Specifically, it describes the ICANN implementation, used by almost all new gTLDs. Due to its wide spread use the working group considered this worth documenting.
(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:
This document describes the requirements, the architecture and the
interfaces between the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and
Domain Name Registries as well as between the ICANN TMCH and
Domain Name Registrars for the provisioning and management of
domain names during Sunrise and Trademark Claims Periods.
Working Group Summary:
This draft is one of the oldest items on the regext wg working list.
The working group decided for this document to be informational because it does not
describe a generic way of TMCH function, but it is a detailed description of the ICANN
implemented TMCH function.
For a long time this document has been blocked by the draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd which
it uses as a normative reference. Additionally progress was stopped by discussions on the
ICANN side about the TMCH process and implementation.
The author has answered to questions and comments from the working group.
New version of the document reflected the discussion on the list.
Comments and change requests from the WGLC have been addressed.
The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.
(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 shepherd has verified that this document indeed describes the process and architecture ICANN used in the gTLD program.
The XML example has been validated against the XML schema provided in the draft by the Document Shepherd.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Several implementors have reviewed the document and found it to be a good representation of ICANNs implementation requirements.
(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.
(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.
(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?
Yes, the author has confirmed full conformance to BCP 78 and 79.
(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 disclosure has been filed.
(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?
No disagreement on mailing list or at in person meetings. Strong agreement that this document describes the ICANN TMCH implementation.
(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.)
(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 author has fixed all nits found by the shepherd.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No review needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes, in fact references are one of the main reason this document took so long to go through the working group.
(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?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
The document contains no downward references.
(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.
(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 requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the XML schema for the namespace definitions.
(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.
(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.
All XML examples in the document have been validated against the schema provided in the document.
(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?
The document does not contain a YANG module.