Shepherd writeup

[This document has been through the IESG once before.  It is being resubmitted
since the IESG asked to review this document once the entire document set was
ready.  Olaf Kolkman was the previous document shepherd, and used the old writeup rather than the new one.  I have made only minor edits.  -MSK]

(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 intended to be Standards Track RFC, it is the normative
specification on how to use a Registration Data Access Protocol on top
of HTTP, hence Standards Track.

(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 the usage of HTTP for Registration Data
   Directory Services.  The goal of this document is to tie together
   usage patterns of HTTP into a common profile applicable to the
   various types of Directory Services serving Registration Data using
   RESTful practices.  By giving the various Directory Services common
   behavior, a single client is better able to retrieve data from
   Directory Services adhering to this behavior.

Working Group Summary:

During the development of the working group there has been a good
amount of review by multiple WG participants. There are no issues
remaining on the rough side of consensus and the document as a whole is
well carried by consensus.

This document is not contentious, but in the spirit of putting all
cards on the table: there is one point where it touches on an issue
that seems to be potentially create more discussion in the future and
that is the encapsulation format of the reply. The working is clearly
going for JSON although there are some that argue that XML might be
better suited for some deployments. This specification does allow,
just like the charter, a possibility for alternative reply
encapsulations. In other words, I do not see any problems for this

Document Quality:

During the previous IETF there has been a demo of four or more implementations.
There have been explicit statements by others that they believe the
RFC is of sufficient detail to implement against. There is no
indication this document under-specifies any aspects.

There has not been a MIB, Media Type, DNS, or Security expert review
(at least not with those explicit hats).


Chairs: Murray Kucherawy and Olaf Kolkman
Shepherd: Murray Kucherawy
AD: Pete Resnick

(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.

Olaf Kolkman reviewed version 03, 04 and 05 in detail. (The shepherd review
for 04 concluded that a few fixes where needed before submission.)

Murray Kucherawy did a detailed review of -11, resulting in -12.

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


(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.

The document has an internationalization section (section 9). I know
that some of the folk in the working group have a background in
Internationalization issues and have reviewed the document. That said
the document identifies the issues only to be addressed in future
document that specify the rules for replies.

I am not an HTTP expert myself but I do not think that the
specification touched areas that are beyond the HTTP knowledge within
the working group.

(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.

There are no specific 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?

I have contacted all authors and they confirmed that there were no
disclosures that needed to be filed.

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

No IPR disclosures.

(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?

The WG Consensus is solid and carried by the whole group.

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

I have not heard discontent about this document.

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

ID nits reports a downref. See further below.

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

The specification registers the "application/rdap+json" media type.
(section 8.2)

Review of the media type has been performed through the list. 

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


(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?

This document refers to other WEIRDS documents.  We expect they will be
processed as a cluster.

(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.

[RFC6839] is a downward reference.

(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, this document will neither obsolete nor update other documents.

(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

Consistency with Body: Confirm
Consistency extensions/Registries: Confirm (in 8.2)
Detailed spec for new registries: Confirm (in 8.1)
Procedure for future registration: Confirm (in 8.1)
Reasonable name: Confirm

(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.

There are no such registries. Only 'Specification Required'.

(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, etc.

There is one trivial ABNF specification in the document. It has been
checked using

          name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" )

          [1] passed