Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-10

[Ballot comment]
Why are they only SHOULDs in Section 5.1.3.4?  Why not MUST?  Under what circumstances might an implementer or operator legitimately do something other than what it says here?

[Ballot comment]
Much thanks for writing this document -- it solves a significant and real issue in the domain registration lifecycle.

Also much thanks to Ralf Weber for the initial DNSDIR (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08-dnsdir-lc-weber-2024-11-28/), and then updating it once the issues were all addressed.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clear description of the problem and the operational and security issues involved. I think this
is good work to get a BCP for to reduce harm.


Some of my comments I left below, I felt on the border of a DISCUSS or COMMENT. I chose to leave it as COMMENTS.




        5.1.3.4. Renaming to Sacrificial Name Server

This description does not seem to match the idea of "sacrificial" name server. It is more
a dedicated nameserver maintained by the client/registrar. Maybe "Last Resort Name Server"
is a better name?

        The name server MAY provide any valid response.

This one is tricky. Of the domain using the host object has other still valid nameservers,
it would be better to ServFail. If there are no more other valid nameservers, resolving
everything to a dedicated IP running a webserver hosting a message "no valid nameservers
for this domain" could be useful. But such a message is harmful if the domain has other
still functional nameservers.

        5.1.4.2.1.2. Practice Detriments

        These TLDs are reserved for experimentation or testing. Their
        use is confusing and does not signal the client's intent. Their
        use may be prevented by policy.

The first two sentences are not correct when ".invalid" is used. The last
sentence seems a weak argument. I think ".invalid" would make a good solution
here, and I would turn around the last sentence and make this document state
that use of .invalid SHOULD NOT be prevented by policy.

        5.1.4.3. Renaming to a Special-Use Domain

Only after reading 5.1.4.3 do I realise that 5.1.4.2 meant only "invalid." as FQDN
when it said ".invalid" and not SLDs inside .invalid. That is not obvious to the reader
and I think should be explicitly stated. (Or 5.1.4.3 could be removed with some text
moved into 5.1.4.4?)

I think adding another name string Special Use Domains should be avoided. There
are attempts to stop allowing Special-Use domains entirely, and taking up a
"nice name" also takes that name away for real registration in the future.

One could instead use something like invalid.arpa or broken-ns.arpa instead?
(Oh, I see that is what 5.1.4.4 is doing)

I feel Section 5.2 has little to do with IETF and protocols, and is much better
handled in other venues? Like ccTLD orgs and/or ICANN ? It is harmless here,
but any BCP guidance in this section is not protocol guidance but guidance for
the RRR-model.


I strongly dislike the term "sacrificial.invalid". Registrants will not have an
intuitive grasp for what this means. For example "deleted-ns.invalid" would
convey a much clearer signal of what has happened. Furthermore, "sacrificing"
implies that this situation is about to change, which is almost never what
is described here. It is a lasting change until the registrant or registrar
fixes the domain delegation.


I am not sure if the document has properly taken into account whether queries
in the "sacrifcial name" in the various solutions would be handled and eaten
by the Recursive DNS or be forwarded to the root nameservers. This might depend
on the name used as well. But for example, my unbound nameserver (and Quad9) seem
to synthesis the .invalid response, thus suppressing queries to the root, while
Google DNS and Cloudflare seem to return a SOA of the root zone, implying it might
have actually sent the query to the root. This might cause quite some load if a
popular domain were to end up in such a bad situation.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document (and thanks to Ralf Weber for the DNS directorate reviews). Nevertheless I have some non-blocking comments.

The most important one is about the publication status of BCP (the WG was also not unanimous based on the shepherd's write-up). The document enumerates and evaluates several practices and for some of them adds `This practice MUST NOT be used`, which is rather unusual for a BCP even if the title rightfully says "Best practices" (plural form). I have more trouble with `6. Recommendations` followed by `EPP servers and clients MUST implement one of the following practices` should the "MUST" rather be a "RECOMMENDED" (of course changing the sentence structure)? All in all, an intended status of "PS" or "informational" would be more appropriate.

Minor nit: let's move the URL in the informative reference rather than inserting it in-line in the section.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the GENART review.

IDnits reports:
  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8499
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9499)

Comments on the list indicate changes that are proposed for -09 have not yet been implemented

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/dGyLEV8S7uaNuduLYReaGskR8kw/

Some are still awaiting feedback from the reviewer, for example:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/iqeBcMIgt-qiklEKDyULjQbrK3U/

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andy@hxr.us, draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp@ietf.org, orie@transmute.industries, regext-chairs@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Best Practices for Deletion of Domain and Host Objects in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Best Practices for Deletion
of Domain and Host Objects in the
  Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)'
  as Best Current Practice

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-28. 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


  The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) includes commands for
  clients to delete domain and host objects, both of which are used to
  publish information in the Domain Name System (DNS).  EPP also
  includes guidance for deletions that is intended to avoid DNS
  resolution disruptions and maintain data consistency.  However,
  operational relationships between objects can make that guidance
  difficult to implement.  Some EPP clients have developed operational
  practices to delete those objects that have unintended impacts on DNS
  resolution and security.  This document describes best current
  practices and proposes new potential practices to delete domain and
  host objects that reduce the risk of DNS resolution failure and
  maintain client-server data consistency.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp shepherd write up 18 Oct 2024

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document represents support of the working group, with support from
individuals who normally do not speak up in the REGEXT group.

However, there was one voice of descent regarding the use of normative language
to describe the analysis of practices (Section 5) in contrast to its use in
the proposed recommendations (Section 6). Section 6 language states that specific
practices in Section 5 MUST be employed, yet the normative language in Section 5
uses language such as MAY. The concern is that such a mismatch could lead to
confusion.

Additionally, there were discussion regarding the use of BCPs to suggest
practices that are not know to be practiced. In other words, how can a BCP normatively
require a practice that has not been observed because it is not a "current" practice.
It was noted that RFC 2026 permits BCPs to describe what is believed to be the best
way to perform some operations or IETF process functions.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

While there was active discussion, there were no controversial issues that
required particularly rough consensus.

3. 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.)

None known to exist.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This is a BCP, not protocol document.

Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document was presented in the DNSOP working group both in a meeting and on
the mailing list. Many of those discussions were cross-posted on to the REGEXT
mailing list.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews are applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document has no YANG models.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

This document contains no formal languages.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document is needed as it describes methods to avoid domain name hijacking
using the EPP protocol. This document is complete. This document does read more
like reference material than an explicit set of instructions, however it is
easy to reference specific parts of the document and easy to find the specific
recommended practices. That is, this document is consistent and strictly sticks
to the “don’t repeat yourself” principle.

The recommendation in section 6.2.1 makes reference to the practice in section
5.2.2.3. Section 5.2.2.3 will require specific knowledge of the EPP protocol
and its operational use to be comprehended.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?

This document does call out the use of special-use domains, and as such should
be reviewed explicitly by the DNSDIR. According to the authors it has not yet
been reviewed by DNSDIR.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is proposing new practices for the deletion of domain names using
EPP and the issues caused by dependencies on nameservers. It is correctly
categorized as a BCP, and is shown that way in the data tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. No disclosures have been made, and all authors have stated they have
fulfilled their obligations under BCP 79.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document appears to be nits free.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No. RFC 3915 was listed as informative but was changed to normative during
the Shepard write up.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No. Note that RFC 8244 is a normative reference but is in the DOWNREF registry.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document does not have any IANA considerations, nor is any required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

Draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp shepherd write up 18 Oct 2024

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document represents support of the working group, with support from
individuals who normally do not speak up in the REGEXT group.

However, there was one voice of descent regarding the use of normative language
to describe the analysis of practices (Section 5) in contrast to its use in
the proposed recommendations (Section 6). Section 6 language states that specific
practices in Section 5 MUST be employed, yet the normative language in Section 5
uses language such as MAY. The concern is that such a mismatch could lead to
confusion.

Additionally, there were discussion regarding the use of BCPs to suggest
practices that are not know to be practiced. In other words, how can a BCP normatively
require a practice that has not been observed because it is not a "current" practice.
It was noted that RFC 2026 permits BCPs to describe what is believed to be the best
way to perform some operations or IETF process functions.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

While there was active discussion, there were no controversial issues that
required particularly rough consensus.

3. 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.)

None known to exist.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This is a BCP, not protocol document.

Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document was presented in the DNSOP working group both in a meeting and on
the mailing list. Many of those discussions were cross-posted on to the REGEXT
mailing list.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews are applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document has no YANG models.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

This document contains no formal languages.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document is needed as it describes methods to avoid domain name hijacking
using the EPP protocol. This document is complete. This document does read more
like reference material than an explicit set of instructions, however it is
easy to reference specific parts of the document and easy to find the specific
recommended practices. That is, this document is consistent and strictly sticks
to the “don’t repeat yourself” principle.

The recommendation in section 6.2.1 makes reference to the practice in section
5.2.2.3. Section 5.2.2.3 will require specific knowledge of the EPP protocol
and its operational use to be comprehended.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?

This document does call out the use of special-use domains, and as such should
be reviewed explicitly by the DNSDIR. According to the authors it has not yet
been reviewed by DNSDIR.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is proposing new practices for the deletion of domain names using
EPP and the issues caused by dependencies on nameservers. It is correctly
categorized as a BCP, and is shown that way in the data tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. No disclosures have been made, and all authors have stated they have
fulfilled their obligations under BCP 79.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document appears to be nits free.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No. RFC 3915 was listed as informative but was changed to normative during
the Shepard write up.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No. Note that RFC 8244 is a normative reference but is in the DOWNREF registry.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document does not have any IANA considerations, nor is any required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

Draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp shepherd write up 19 Oct 2024

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document represents support of the working group, with support from
individuals who normally do not speak up in the REGEXT group.

However, there was one voice of descent regarding the use of normative language
to describe the analysis of practices (Section 5) in contrast to its use in
the proposed recommendations (Section 6). Section 6 language states that specific
practices in Section 5 MUST be employed, yet the normative language in Section 5
uses language such as MAY. The concern is that such a mismatch could lead to
confusion.

Additionally, there were discussion regarding the use of BCPs to suggest
practices that are not know to be practiced. In other words, how can a BCP normatively
require a practice that has not been observed because it is not a "current" practice.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

While there was active discussion, there were no controversial issues that
required particularly rough consensus.

3. 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.)

None known to exist.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

This is a BCP, not protocol document.

Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document was presented in the DNSOP working group both in a meeting and on
the mailing list. Many of those discussions were cross-posted on to the REGEXT
mailing list.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews are applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?

This document has no YANG models.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

This document contains no formal languages.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This document is needed as it describes methods to avoid domain name hijacking
using the EPP protocol. This document is complete. This document does read more
like reference material than an explicit set of instructions, however it is
easy to reference specific parts of the document and easy to find the specific
recommended practices. That is, this document is consistent and strictly sticks
to the “don’t repeat yourself” principle.

The recommendation in section 6.2.1 makes reference to the practice in section
5.2.2.3. Section 5.2.2.3 will require specific knowledge of the EPP protocol
and its operational use to be comprehended.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?

This document does call out the use of special-use domains, and as such should
be reviewed explicitly by the DNSDIR. According to the authors it has not yet
been reviewed by DNSDIR.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is proposing new practices for the deletion of domain names using
EPP and the issues caused by dependencies on nameservers. It is correctly
categorized as a BCP, and is shown that way in the data tracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. No disclosures have been made, and all authors have stated they have
fulfilled their obligations under BCP 79.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document appears to be nits free.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No. RFC 3915 was listed as informative but was changed to normative during
the Shepard write up.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?

All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No. Note that RFC 8244 is a normative reference but is in the DOWNREF registry.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document does not have any IANA considerations, nor is any required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

Draft-ietf-regext-epp-delete-bcp shepherd write up


Document History


1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?


This document represents broad support of the working group, with support from individuals who normally do not speak up in the REGEXT group.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?


While there was active discussion, there were no controversial issues that required particularly rough consensus.


3. 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.)


None known to exist.


4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?


This is a BCP, not protocol document.


Additional Reviews


5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.


This document was presented in the DNSOP working group both in a meeting and on the mailing list. Many of those discussions were cross-posted on to the REGEXT mailing list.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


No formal reviews are applicable.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?


This document has no YANG models.


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.


This document contains no formal languages.


Document Shepherd Checks


9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?


This document is needed as it describes methods to avoid domain name hijacking using the EPP protocol. This document is complete. This document does read more like reference material than an explicit set of instructions, however it is easy to reference specific parts of the document and easy to find the specific recommended practices. That is, this document is consistent and strictly sticks to the “don’t repeat yourself” principle.


The recommendation in section 6.2.1 makes reference to the practice in section 5.2.2.3. Section 5.2.2.3 will require specific knowledge of the EPP protocol and its operational use to be comprehended.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Reviews?


This document does call out the use of special-use domains, and as such should be reviewed explicitly by the DNSDIR. According to the authors it has not yet been reviewed by DNSDIR.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?


This document is proposing new practices for the deletion of domain names using EPP and the issues caused by dependencies on nameservers. It is correctly categorized as a BCP, and is shown that way in the data tracker.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.


Yes. No disclosures have been made and all authors have stated they have fulfilled their obligations under BCP 79.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.


Yes.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)


This document appears to be nits free.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.


The reference to RFC 3915 should likely be normative, as it is part of the practice being described.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
References?


All references are freely available.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.


No. Note that RFC 8244 is a normative reference but is in the DOWNREF registry.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

This document does not have any IANA considerations, nor is any required.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.