Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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 draft is being requested for a "Standards Track" RFC. This is proper as it
defines a Domain Name which will added to a specific IANA registry.

(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 uses the Special-Use Domain Names registry to register the
'.onion' Top Level Domain (TLD) for the Tor Network. This will allow hosts on
the ToR network to apply for and receive legitimate SSL Certificates. 

Working Group Summary

During the Working Group process, there was contention from several parties
who were unaware that the charter of DNSOP was updated to reflect issues
surrounding [RFC6761].  Once that was cleared up, there was several
discussions that no addition to the Special-Use Domain Name registry could
happen until an overhaul of [RFC6751] occurred. In the case of this draft,
it was decided to move forward with the current conditions.

Document Quality

The draft is a few pages long, long enough to create a registration template
for '.onion' to be added to the Special-Use Registry. The Document Quality is
quite reasonable.  Several Experts in the area of DNS and Domain Names
reviewed the document and found it suitable to move forward. 


The Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski and the Responsible Area Director is Joel

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

The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of this document. They also were
involved with many discussions on the mailing list about this topic and this
name directly.  The Shepherd feels this document is ready for publication.

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

The Document Shepherd feels that the Working Group spent an inordinate amount 
of time discussing this document and reviewing the contents of this draft. 

(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.

This document does not need any further review from a broader perspective. 

(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.

The main issue which arose during this draft, and others like it, is that 
the world has changed since the creation of [RFC6761].  Adding names to the
Special-Use Domain Names registry is effectively removing it from possible Top
Level Domains(TLDs) that can be used.  Previously, this was less of a concern
as TLDs were few.  With ICANN now monetizing the Root Zone of the Internet,
it can be argued that these names have an intrinsic value.

(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.

There are no IPR disclosures for this document.

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

There are no IPR disclosures filed referencing this document.

(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 solid working group consensus behind this document. The Working Group
feels this draft most reflects the intents and purposes of [RFC6761] and the
need to register this name.

(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.) 

There has been no appeals threatened or indicated with 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

There are no nits in this document.

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

This document should receive the formal review criteria that is required in
placing a domain name on the Special-Use Domain Names list, as specified in

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

All references have been identified as 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?

All normative references in this document are in a completed state.

(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. 

There are no downward normative references in this document.

(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.

This document will not change the state of any existing RFCs. 

(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 5226).

The IANA considerations section describes the "Special-Use Domain Names
Registry", which is what [RFC6761] refers to it as.

The IANA Section of this document 
(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 new IANA registries in this document

(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.