Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed Data
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-14

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed and RFC 9877, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Gavin Brown for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus and a very vague justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Tatuya Jinmei, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-11-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2025-05-28/


I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2.1

Like some other AD, I would have preferred the use of 'text/csv' media type but the media type experts did not mind, so let it be.

### Section 2.3

Like Ketan, I cannot refrain from wondering why "geofeed1" rather than "geofeed" ? Section 9.1 hints to a version number but all other extensions registered at IANA do not have such a version in the name altough some use '_0' or '_1', this format is clearer IMHO.

### Section 2.4

Thanks for using an IPv6 example :-)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for the work on this useful document.

I have a couple of comments/suggestions to share:

1) The use of "geofeed1" tripped me as well. Is it a version (i.e., likely there will be more?) then perhaps "geofeedv1"? If not, I don't really have a better suggestion.

2) In section 2.2, for the following text in v12

CURRENT
In such a case, the server SHOULD provide "hreflang" members for the geofeed link objects. Except for the multiple-languages scenario, the server SHOULD NOT return more than one geofeed link object.

I have an opposite position to that of Med and preferred the use of the MUST NOT (which was in v11). Leaving things open will make it harder for the clients on how they would handle multiple objects and what that means - use the first? I would also ask if there is a reason for the SHOULD in the previous sentence and why it can't be a MUST as well. While the handling by the clients is out of scope of this document, please do think hard and long on what would make things easier and well understood for the clients. In any case, I will leave it to the authors and WG since I don't have a good enough understanding of this space to give concrete suggestions.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors for working on the document, and to Gavin Brown for shepherding the document through.

Section 2.3, paragraph 1
>    This document defines a new extension identifier, "geofeed1", for use
>    by servers that host geofeed URLs for their IP network objects and
>    include geofeed URL link objects in their responses to clients in
>    accordance with Section 2.2.  A server that uses this extension
>    identifier MUST include it in the "rdapConformance" array for any
>    lookup or search response containing an IP network object, as well as
>    in the help response.  Here is an elided example for this inclusion:

I wanted to thank Dale Worley for his GENART review and agree with his observation about this section. In particular, the updated statement that says "is able to return to the client" does indeed sound too vague. Can this statement be made more explicit with some 2119 keywords?

Note, I am reviewing -09 of the document, and if the following comment has been addressed, feel free to ignore it.

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "NOT RECOMMENDED", "REQUIRED",
"RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD NOT", "SHOULD", "SHALL NOT", "OPTIONAL", "MUST", "MUST
NOT", "SHALL", and "MAY", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174
boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.)

The IANA review of this document has not concluded yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

These URLs in the document did not return content:

* https://rdap.db.ripe.net

[Ballot comment]
Hi Jasdip, Tom,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification. Thanks also for supplying an operational considerations section.

Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the OPSDIR review and the authors for engaging and converging.

Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t remember this draft was shared with OSPAWG, where RFC9092 and RFC9632 were developed. Nothing blocking, though.

# Why this spec is needed?

## Position the specification

In order to help readers to glue the various pieces in this space, including, e.g., text that would mirror the following part from RFC9632 would be helpful:

  At the time of publishing this document, geolocation providers have
  bulk WHOIS data access at all the RIRs.  An anonymized version of
  such data is openly available for all RIRs except ARIN, which
  requires an authorization.  However, for users without such
  authorization, the same result can be achieved with extra RDAP
  effort.

## Fetching and using data

I would add a mention early in the doc to make it explicit whether fetching and making use of geofeed is in scope/out of scope.

# Extension name and version

CURRENT:
  Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed Data
                  draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-11

Abstract

  This document defines a new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
  extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts
  geofeed URLs for its IP network objects. 


## I noted that the mention of “version 1” was mentioned in a previous version but then removed.

## Without that mention, the label of the extension “geofeed1” may be intriguing as to why we don’t use simply “geofeed”?

## Should “Version 1” be mentioned in the title as the extension is expected to cover version 1 of the extension, anyway :-)

## BTW, I checked for guidance on the extension naming & version, but didn’t find something useful on this. I understand that this is handled as an opaque value and no meaning associated with the extension labels. I noticed however that the registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml lists extension labels with different patterns (e.g., with or without “underscore”, and so on).

# Introduction

## (nit) Please Expand RDAP + add authoritative reference

CURRENT:
  [RFC8805] and [RFC9632] detail the IP geolocation feed (commonly
  known as 'geofeed') file format and associated access mechanisms.
  This document specifies how geofeed URLs can be accessed through
  RDAP. 

## Normative language

CURRENT:
  Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to
  illustrate element relationships, and are not a REQUIRED feature of
  this specification.

I understood this is somehow a convention in RDAP, but I still think the use of normative language here is not correct. Combing both “not” and “REQUIRED” is making things worse.

# “MUST…except ..” construct

CURRENT:
  Except for the multiple-languages scenario, the server MUST
  NOT return more than one geofeed link object.

As this is not an absolute requirement, this use is not consistent with 2119, which says;

==
2. MUST NOT  This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
  definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

4. SHOULD NOT  This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
  there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
  particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
  implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
  before implementing any behavior described with this label.
==

Please update accordingly.

# Response customization

CURRENT:
  If the server includes "geofeed1" in the "rdapConformance" array,
  then for any response concerning a particular IP network object for
  which the server possesses a geofeed URL and is able to return it to
  the client, the server MUST include a corresponding geofeed link
  object in the response.

Are there cases where customized responses may be generated (client profiles, or the like)? If so, I think this behavior should be conditioned by absence of policy.

# (nit) Standard response meaning

CURRENT:
  registered media type or link relation in a standard response
  (without implementing any particular extension). 

Is “(without implementing any particular extension)” explaining what is meant by “standard response”? Maybe add “i.e.” or the like.

# Operational Considerations

## Fetching ops matters and avoid too frequent queries

We may consider add a pointer to rfc9632#section-6 for additional matters, especially this part:

  To prevent undue load on RPSL and geofeed servers, entity-fetching
  geofeed data using these mechanisms MUST NOT do frequent real-time
  lookups.

## What is meant by “IP network lookup”?

OLD:
When an RDAP client performs an IP network lookup

Maybe

NEW:
  When an RDAP client queries for information about IP networks

# Privacy: incidents may happen, but the requirement does not need to include “accidentally”

OLD:
  All the privacy considerations from Section 7 of [RFC9632] apply to
  this document.  In particular, the service provider publishing the
  geofeed file MUST take care to not accidentally expose the location
  of any individual.

NEW:
  All the privacy considerations from Section 7 of [RFC9632] apply to
  this document.  In particular, the service provider publishing the
  geofeed file MUST take care to not expose the location
  of any individual.

# Security considerations

## Maybe point to RFC9632 for fetching/using geofeed considerations

## HTTPS

CURRENT:
  A geofeed file MUST be referenced with an HTTPS URL, per Section 6 of
  [RFC9632].

This is already mandated by 9632. Maybe better to cover implications on RDAP clients. For example, can we say that clients MUST ignore geofeeds that are not HTTPS?

# Implementation Status: Broken URL

Thank you for providing this section.

However, I got this error message:

==
HTTP ERROR 404 Not Found
URI:/STATUS:404MESSAGE:Not FoundSERVLET:default
==

Is there any update to the status since then?

Cheers,
Med

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, in the RDAP Extensions registry located at:

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

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

Extension Identifier: geofeed1
Registry Operator: Any
Specification: [ RFC-to-be ]
Contact: IETF
Intended Usage: This extension describes version 1 of a method to access the IP geolocation feed data through RDAP.

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the Link Relation Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Relation Name: geo
Description: Indicates that the link context has a resource with geographic information at the link target.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Name: geofeed+csv
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the Structured Syntax Suffixes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Name: Comma-Separated Values (CSV)
+suffix: +csv
References: [ RFC4180 ][ RFC7111 ]
Encoding Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
Interoperability Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
Fragment Identifier Considerations: The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +csv SHOULD be as specified for "text/csv". The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+csv" SHOULD be processed as follows: For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +csv rules, then as specified in +csv. For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +csv rules, then as specified in "xxx/yyy+csv". For cases not defined in +csv, then as specified in "xxx/yyy+csv".
Security Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
Contact: IETF
Author/Change Controller:
Registration Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Modification Date(s):

As this also requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand 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.

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 RDAP Extension registration has been approved.

Comments regarding the Link Relation Type registration: The description given:

> Indicates that the link context has a resource with geographic information at the link target

doesn't seem correct; I *believe* the intent is something like:

> Refers to a resource with geographic information related to the link context

Also, the name requested is extremely generic. If the intent is that this use will be specific to RDAP, the relation name should be correspondingly specific -- e.g., "rdap-geofeed". On the other hand, if the intent is to register a generic name, the language in the specification should explicitly indicate its generic semantics and separate the RDAP case more clearly (e.g., using a "type" attribute to indicate a media type). Moving the registration to a separate document would assist in this.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-04-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed@ietf.org, gavin.brown@icann.org, orie@or13.io, regext-chairs@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed Data) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed Data'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2025-04-02. 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 defines a new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
  extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts
  geofeed URLs for its IP network objects.  It also defines a new media
  type and a new link relation type for the associated link objects
  included in responses.




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



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc4180: Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-Separated Values (CSV) Files (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
    rfc7111: URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type (Informational - Independent Submission stream)
    rfc8805: A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Feeds (Informational - Independent Submission stream)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

As is common with REGEXT, the WGLC only elicited responses from a few members,
but those responses were uniformly supportive of publication, with constructive
feedback which was then incorporated into the draft.

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

There was no controversy or roughness of 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.)

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)?

The authors of this documents represent two of the Regional Internet Registries.
Of these, RIPE NCC has a production implementation which is listed in the
"Implementation Status" section of the document, while ARIN plans to implement
once the document has been published as an RFC.

## 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 describes how RIRs can use RDAP to publish the URL of Geofeed data
files. These files are described in RFC 9632 which was produced by OPSAWG.

There is a loose interaction between the contents of this document and the
Geofeed specification, namely a one-way hyperlink. This document also specifies
a Media Type registration for Geofeed files.

Given the unique nature of OPSAWG, a separate review of this document by that
WG seems unnecessary.

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 registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be well-formed.

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]?

Not applicable to this document.

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.

There are several JSON examples in the document. The authors have informed me
that these have been manually checked. Because some of these examples are elided
and are therefore not valid JSON, automated checks are not possible.

## 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. Based on my reading of this document, this document fulfills a clear need,
it is clearly written and complete, understandable and implementable, correctly
designed, and ready for AD review.

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?

The authors have submitted the media type registration for review, as per the
advice in the "Media Types" section of the "Typical ART Area Issues" page on
wiki.ietf.org. No negative feedback has been received. No other issues appear
applicable.

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?

This document is on the standards track as reflected by the datatracker. This
is an IETF-authored RDAP extension and is appropriate for the standards track.

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. The authors have indicated that there are no Intellectual Property Rights
associated with this document.

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, both authors have indicated their willingess to be listed as such.

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.)

The idnits tool reports two related issues which seem false positives: the first
claims that the document lacks a normative reference to RFC 2119 (the document
has a normative reference to BCP 14 instead). The second warns of a downref, to
the aforementioned BCP 14.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I have reviewed and do not believe there are any miscategorised references.

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

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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?

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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]).

This document registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be consistent with the body of the document
and are well-formed.

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.

Not applicable.

[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

As is common with REGEXT, the WGLC only elicited responses from a few members,
but those responses were uniformly supportive of publication, with constructive
feedback which was then incorporated into the draft.

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

There was no controversy or roughness of 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.)

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)?

The authors of this documents represent two of the Regional Internet Registries.
Of these, RIPE NCC has a production implementation which is listed in the
"Implementation Status" section of the document, while ARIN plans to implement
once the document has been published as an RFC.

## 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 describes how RIRs can use RDAP to publish the URL of Geofeed data
files. These files are described in RFC 9632 which was produced by OPSAWG.

There is a loose interaction between the contents of this document and the
Geofeed specification, namely a one-way hyperlink. This document also specifies
a Media Type registration for Geofeed files.

Given the unique nature of OPSAWG, a separate review of this document by that
WG seems unnecessary.

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 registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be well-formed.

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]?

Not applicable to this document.

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.

There are several JSON examples in the document. The authors have informed me
that these have been manually checked. Because some of these examples are elided
and are therefore not valid JSON, automated checks are not possible.

## 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. Based on my reading of this document, this document fulfills a clear need,
it is clearly written and complete, understandable and implementable, correctly
designed, and ready for AD review.

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?

The authors have submitted the media type registration for review, as per the
advice in the "Media Types" section of the "Typical ART Area Issues" page on
wiki.ietf.org. No negative feedback has been received. No other issues appear
applicable.

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?

This document is on the standards track as reflected by the datatracker. This
is an IETF-authored RDAP extension and is appropriate for the standards track.

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. The authors have indicated that there are no Intellectual Property Rights
associated with this document.

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, both authors have indicated their willingess to be listed as such.

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.)

The idnits tool reports two related issues which seem false positives: the first
claims that the document lacks a normative reference to RFC 2119 (the document
has a normative reference to BCP 14 instead). The second warns of a downref, to
the aforementioned BCP 14.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I have reviewed and do not believe there are any miscategorised references.

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

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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?

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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]).

This document registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be consistent with the body of the document
and are well-formed.

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.

Not applicable.

[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

As is common with REGEXT, the WGLC only elicited responses from a few members,
but those responses were uniformly supportive of publication, with constructive
feedback which was then incorporated into the draft.

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

There was no controversy or roughness of 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.)

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)?

The authors of this documents represent two of the Regional Internet Registries.
Of these, RIPE NCC has a production implementation which is listed in the
"Implementation Status" section of the document, while ARIN plans to implement
once the document has been published as an RFC.

## 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 describes how RIRs can use RDAP to publish the URL of Geofeed data
files. These files are described in RFC 9632 which was produced by OPSAWG.

There is a loose interaction between the contents of this document and the
Geofeed specification, namely a one-way hyperlink. This document also specifies
a Media Type registration for Geofeed files.

Given the unique nature of OPSAWG, a separate review of this document by that
WG seems unnecessary.

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 registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be well-formed.

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]?

Not applicable to this document.

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.

There are several JSON examples in the document. The authors have informed me
that these have been manually checked. Because some of these examples are elided
and are therefore not valid JSON, automated checks are not possible.

## 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. Based on my reading of this document, this document fulfills a clear need,
it is clearly written and complete, understandable and implementable, correctly
designed, and ready for AD review.

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?

The authors have informed me that they plan to pre-submit the media type
registration for review, as per the advice in the "Media Types" section of the
"Typical ART Area Issues" page on wiki.ietf.org. No other issues appear
applicable.

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?

This document is on the standards track as reflected by the datatracker. This
is an IETF authored RDAP extension and is appropriate for the standards track.

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. The authors have indicated that there are no Intellectual Property Rights
associated with this document.

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, both authors have indicated their willingess to be listed as such.

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.)

The idnits tool reports two related issues which seem false positives: the first
claims that the document lacks a normative reference to RFC 2119 (the document
has a normative reference to BCP 14 instead). The second warns of a downref, to
the aforementioned BCP 14.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I have reviewed and do not believe there are any miscategorised references.

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

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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?

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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]).

This document registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be consistent with the body of the document
and are well-formed.

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.

Not applicable.

[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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

As is common with REGEXT, the WGLC only elicited responses from a few members,
but those responses were uniformly supportive of publication, with constructive
feedback which was then incorporated into the draft.

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

There was no controversy or roughness of 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.)

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)?

The authors of this documents represent two of the Regional Internet Registries.
Of these, RIPE NCC has a production implementation which is listed in the
"Implementation Status" section of the document, while ARIN plans to implement
once the document has been published as an RFC.

## 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 describes how RIRs can use RDAP to publish the URL of Geofeed data
files. These files are described in RFC 9632 which is was produced by OPSAWG.

There is a loose interaction between the contents of this document and the
Geofeed specification, namely a one-way hyperlink. This document also specifies
a Media Type registration for Geofeed files.

Given the unique nature of OPSAWG, a separate review of this document by that
WG seems unnecessary.

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 registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be well-formed.

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]?

Not applicable to this document.

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.

There are several JSON examples in the document. The authors have informed me
that these have been manually checked. Because some of these examples are elided
and are therefore not valid JSON, automated checks are not possible.

## 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. Based on my reading of this document, this document fulfills a clear need,
it is clearly written and complete, understandable and implementable, correctly
designed, and ready for AD review.

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?

The authors have informed me that they plan to pre-submit the media type
registration for review, as per the advice in the "Media Types" section of the
"Typical ART Area Issues" page on wiki.ietf.org. No other issues appear
applicable.

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?

This document is on the standards track as reflected by the datatracker. This
is an IETF authored RDAP extension and is appropriate for the standards track.

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. The authors have indicated that there are no Intellectual Property Rights
associated with this document.

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, both authors have indicated their willingess to be listed as such.

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.)

The idnits tool reports two related issues which seem false positives: the first
claims that the document lacks a normative reference to RFC 2119 (the document
has a normative reference to BCP 14 instead). The second warns of a downref, to
the aforementioned BCP 14.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

I have reviewed and do not believe there are any miscategorised references.

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

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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?

Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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]).

This document registers entries in the Media Types and Structured Syntax
Suffixes registries, which appear to be consistent with the body of the document
and are well-formed.

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.

Not applicable.

[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/