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.