Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping Extension for Strict Bundling Registration
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

Was a working group document submitted for publication as informational.  Questions were raised by the IESG and a suggestion emerged to submit this as an individual document.  The document is now waiting on its authors to follow through on the individual submission suggestion.

[Ballot discuss]
I’m not certain about the intended status of this document. I understand that this was discussed in the group but this document does specify a protocol extension and as such Proposed Standard or Experimental would be the two usual choices. The shepherd write-up mentions that this extension only has a limited scope, however, not sure what that is supposed to mean and it also doesn’t seems a good reason for informational (but experimental maybe). There are informational RFCs that document protocols of existing deployments for informational purposed only, meaning that there is a good reason to have a description of an existing protocol in a stable reference while the process of publishing the RFC would not change any technical means of that protocol but only document what’s out there. Usually these kind of RFC have a title like “Campany’s X protocol for something”. However, this seems not to be the case here or at least it's not clear from the content of the document.

Significant issues have been raised that require the working group to decide how to proceed.  In particular, the working group needs to decide whether to continue with this document as an Informational product of the working group, to change its intended status to something else, or to abandon it and recommend that the authors take it to the Independent stream.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. I have a couple of comments and nits. Feel free to ignore all of them as their sole goal is to improve your document.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 5 --
"When performing a domain Create, either of the bundle names will be
  accepted.  If the domain name is available, both BDN and RDN will be
  registered."

  Should it rather be "If BDN and RDN are available, then both..." ?
 
-- Section 11 --
The 2 sentences about the experience gained in 15 years should be put in a different paragraph and even perhaps moved in the implementation status.

Unsure also whether the DS/DNSKEY part should be part of the security considerations.

== NITS ==

Generic, I find it weird to have all dates in the examples dated in 1999 or 2001 or 2012 ;-)

Document Shepherd Writeup
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

Technical Summary
This document describes a non-standard proprietary extension of Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) domain name mapping for the provisioning and management of strict bundling registration of domain names. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of bundled domain names.

Working Group Summary
The WG discussed this topic in both mailing list and at meetings, there are no controversies or lack of coverage.  The working group had discussed and considered to move forward as an Informational RFC because it is documenting a proprietary extension, the WG and the related BOF (DNSBundle) discussed the topic this document covers, and nobody objects to its publication within the limited scope it covers.

The original draft has covers more different scenarios (relax bundling), also had some other drafts covering similar problems, and the working group was also mindful of work output and coordination needed with DNSBundle.  The work effort was consolidated and moved forward to cover a very specific scenario only. The working group also agrees that DNSBundle does not prevent the publication of the draft covering the specific scenario (strict bundling).

This document covers the very specific scenario, strict bundling, and introduces one specific mechanism on how to manage that problem space. The WG is aware of the narrow specific scope this document covers and discussed how best to move this document forward. he consensus is to progress this document as an Informational RFC.

Document Quality
There are two registry implementations captured in the Implementation Status section. There is one open source implementation available on client side.

Personnel
Shepherd: Joseph Yee
AD: Adam Roach

Shepherd Comment
The document shepherd reviewed the latest version (-09) of the document and this document’s discussion both on the mailing lists (REGEXT and DNSBundle) and in meetings (REGEXT and DNSBundle).

The shepherd has no concern on the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

There are several XML samples and one formal syntax on the XML.  The shepherd ran the syntax check and found no error, and also verified the samples in the draft against the provided schema.

IPR
Verisign has IPR information:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration

The working group is aware of this IPR and the consensus is to progress the document.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09. 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 three actions which we must complete.

First, in the schema registry on the IETF XML registry page, a single, new registration is to be made as follows:

ID: epp:b-dn-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:epp:b-dn-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the ns registry on the IETF XML registry page, a single, new registration is to be made as follows:

ID: epp:b-dn-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:b-dn-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Third, Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Name of Extension: Domain Name Mapping Extension for Strict Bundling Registration
Document Status: Informational
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Registrant: IESG
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None

As this also requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

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 2019-03-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: jyee@afilias.info, adam@nostrum.com, Joseph Yee , regext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping Extension for Strict Bundling Registration) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping Extension
  for Strict Bundling Registration'
  as Informational RFC

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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-03-15. 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 an extension of Extensible Provisioning
  Protocol (EPP) domain name mapping for the provisioning and
  management of strict bundling registration of domain names.
  Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to
  provide additional features required for the provisioning of bundled
  domain names.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2479/

Document Shepherd Writeup
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09

Technical Summary
This document describes an extension of Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) domain name mapping for the provisioning and management of strict bundling registration of domain names. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of bundled domain names.

Working Group Summary
The WG discussed this topic in both mailing list and at meetings, there are no controversies or lack of coverage.  The working group had discussed and considered to move forward as an Informational RFC, the WG and the related BOF (DNSBundle) discussed the topic this document covers and nobody objects to its publication within the limited scope it covers.

The original draft has covers more different scenarios (relax bundling), also had some other drafts covering similar problems, and the working group was also mindful of work output and coordination needed with DNSBundle.  The work effort was consolidated and moved forward to cover a very specific scenario only. The working group also agrees that DNSBundle does not prevent the publication of the draft covering the specific scenario (strict bundling).

This document covers the very specific scenario, strict bundling, and introduces one specific mechanism on how to manage that problem space. The WG is aware of the narrow specific scope this document covers and discussed how best to move this document forward. he consensus is to progress this document as an Informational RFC.

Document Quality
There are two registry implementations captured in the Implementation Status section. There is one open source implementation available on client side.

Personnel
Shepherd: Joseph Yee
AD: Adam Roach

Shepherd Comment
The document shepherd reviewed the latest version (-09) of the document and this document’s discussion both on the mailing lists (REGEXT and DNSBundle) and in meetings (REGEXT and DNSBundle).

The shepherd has no concern on the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

There are several XML samples and one formal syntax on the XML.  The shepherd ran the syntax check and found no error, and also verified the samples in the draft against the provided schema.

IPR
Verisign has IPR information:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration

The working group is aware of this IPR and the consensus is to progress the document.

Document Shepherd Writeup
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09

Technical Summary
This document describes an extension of Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) domain name mapping for the provisioning and management of strict bundling registration of domain names. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of bundled domain names.

Working Group Summary
The WG discussed this topic in both mailing list and at meetings, there are no controversies or lack of coverage.  The working group had discussed and considered to move forward as an Informational RFC, the WG and the related BOF (DNSBundle) discussed the topic this document covers and nobody objects to its publication within the limited scope it covers.

The original draft has covers more different scenarios (relax bundling), also had some other drafts covering similar problems, and the working group was also mindful of work output and coordination needed with DNSBundle.  The work effort was consolidated and moved forward to cover a very specific scenario only. The working group also agrees that DNSBundle does not prevent the publication of the draft covering the specific scenario (strict bundling).

This document covers the very specific scenario, strict bundling, and introduces one specific mechanism on how to manage that problem space. The WG is aware of the narrow specific scope this document covers and discussed how best to move this document forward. he consensus is to progress this document as an Informational RFC.

Document Quality
There are two registry implementations captured in the Implementation Status section. There is one open source implementation available on client side.

Personnel
Shepherd: Joseph Yee
AD: Adam Roach

Shepherd Comment
The document shepherd reviewed the latest version (-09) of the document and this document’s discussion both on the mailing lists (REGEXT and DNSBundle) and in meetings (REGEXT and DNSBundle).

The shepherd has no concern on the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

There are several XML samples and one formal syntax on the XML.  The shepherd ran the syntax check and found no error, and also verified the samples in the draft against the provided schema.

IPR
Verisign has IPR information:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration

The working group is aware of this IPR and the consensus is to progress the document.

Document Shepherd Writeup
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-08

Technical Summary
This document describes an extension of Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) domain name mapping for the provisioning and management of strict bundling registration of domain names. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of bundled domain names.

Working Group Summary
The WG discussed this topic in both mailing list and at meetings, there are no controversies or lack of coverage.  The working group had discussed and considered to move forward as an Informational RFC, the WG and the related BOF (DNSBundle) discussed the topic this document covers and nobody objects to its publication within the limited scope it covers.

The original draft has covers more different scenarios (relax bundling), also had some other drafts covering similar problems, and the working group was also mindful of work output and coordination needed with DNSBundle.  The work effort was consolidated and moved forward to cover a very specific scenario only. The working group also agrees that DNSBundle does not prevent the publication of the draft covering the specific scenario (strict bundling).

This document covers the very specific scenario, strict bundling, and introduces one specific mechanism on how to manage that problem space. The WG is aware of the narrow specific scope this document covers and discussed how best to move this document forward. he consensus is to progress this document as an Informational RFC.

Document Quality
There are two registry implementations captured in the Implementation Status section. There is one open source implementation available on client side.

Personnel
Shepherd: Joseph Yee
AD: Adam Roach

Shepherd Comment
The document shepherd reviewed the latest version (-08) of the document and this document’s discussion both on the mailing lists (REGEXT and DNSBundle) and in meetings (REGEXT and DNSBundle).

The shepherd has no concern on the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

There are several XML samples and one formal syntax on the XML.  The shepherd ran the syntax check and found no error, and also verified the samples in the draft against the provided schema.

IPR
Verisign has IPR information:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration

The working group is aware of this IPR and the consensus is to progress the document.