Shepherd writeup draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic
Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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?
Yes, a broad agreement was reached. There have been 5 expressions of support
(not counting the editors or document shepherd) and no objections.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
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.)
No.
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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
Existing implementation can be found in the Verisign EPP SDK 1.17.0.2,
published at:
https://www.verisign.com/resources/registrar-resources/epp-sdk/ which needs
to be updated in the draft from
https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-registry-products/epp-sdks
At the time of composing this document no public plans to deploy this transport were found.
## 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.
Review was received from the QUIC group (Lucas Pardue) that addressed
materials in sections 1,3,5, and 6. Lucas Pardue recommended adding
versioning to the ALPN value (e.g., “eoq/0.1”), which was done in
draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-02. Martin Thompson from the QUIC working group
recommended removing the versioning, so the document editors looked to what
was done for DNS over QUIC in RFC 9250, which was to not using versioning in
the form “DoQ”. The ALPN value was updated to “EoQ” in
draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-04 and a reference was made to RFC 7301 in
draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic-05.
Please see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/Thll_wlvPo-BRGfY57JGDXUBYXc/
for more details.
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.
This document does not use any MIB, YANG, or media types, as such it does not
require a formal expert review.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?
This document does not contain a YANG module.
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.
The document does not contain any formal specification language that
requires validation.
## 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?
Yes, after the URL for the Verisign EPP SDK implementation is updated to
https://www.verisign.com/resources/registrar-resources/epp-sdk/. This
document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is
mapped onto a QUIC connection and details how this mechanism leverages the
performance and security features of the QUIC protocol as an EPP transport.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
No such issues have been identified or addressed.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. Datatracker stated attributes correctly reflect proposed
standard. The intended status is appropriate as the document specifies
normative behaviors that impact interoperability between EPP Clients and Servers.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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, I have confirmed with the editor that all disclosure obligations have
been met and no disclosures are required. Please see the links below:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/?qdr=y&q=draft-ietf-regext-epp-quic%20IPR
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. The total number of authors is 5.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
There are no errors to address in draft-regext-epp-quic-06
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
There are no such references.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
There are no such references.
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?
There are no such references.
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. This publication does not change the status of any existing RFC.
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][11]).
The document's IANA consideration section 8 lists two points with
regard to IANA registry update. The first point in section 8.1 contains
a request for a new IANA registry for EoQ Identification String for the
identification of EoQ in the "TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation
(ALPN) Protocol IDs".
The second point in section 8.2 contains a request for reassigning an
existing entry for EPP UDP/700 to this draft.
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.
1- Registration of an EoQ Identification String for the identification
of EoQ in the "TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN)
Protocol IDs" registry [RFC7301].
2- Registration of Port Number for the "Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number Registry" contains an entry for EPP UDP/700 based
on [RFC6335]. However, no known implementations of EPP over UDP exist.
The entry will be reassigned to reference this draft.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/