Shepherd writeup

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Murray Kucherawy (WEIRDS co-chair).
The responsible Area Director is Pete Resnick.

   WHOIS output objects from registries (including both Regional
   Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs)) were
   collected and analyzed.  This document describes the statistical
   analysis process and result of existing WHOIS information.  The
   purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to
   facilitate discussions of data objects included in Registration Data
   Access Protocol (RDAP) responses.

The document is seeking Informational status as it merely contains a summary of research done that justified design decisions made in other WEIRDS WG documents.  It does not describe IETF process or any new protocol work, nor does it describe an experiment.

2. Review and Consensus

The document received light review, but its content is well understood by the entire working group, was presented and discussed during at least two meetings, and has always been non-controversial.  I would describe the consensus as "good but quiet"; the WG had much more meaty things on which to focus.

Early discussion of the document centered around whether to publish it at all.  After discussion with our Area Director who really forced the WG to consider that question, consensus of the WG is that this is useful work to record as it draws a line from WHOIS to RDAP explaining some of the choices found in other documents.  It may also be referenced by ICANN work as their policies transition from WHOIS to RDAP.

No external reviews are warranted.

3. Intellectual Property

Four of the five authors have affirmed that they are submitting this document in compliance with BCPs 78 and 79.  The fifth (Servin) has not responded yet.

There was no on-list discussion of IPR matters other than an explicit request by the WG co-chairs to disclose any IPR issues; none were reported.

4. Other Points

Nothing of note.  No downrefs, no IANA actions.

The RFC Editor should be advised that the appendix tracking document changes should be deleted prior to publication.