Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## 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 7 expressions of
        support (not counting the editors or document shepherd) and no

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


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.)


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

        Yes. Existing known implementations are described in section 10 of the
        draft using the RFC 7942 template.

## 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 does closely interact with OAUTH working group. The group
        was reached out to twice but no response was received. See the
        following requests below:

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. This document describes a federated authentication system for
        RDAP, based on OpenID Connect, which simplify the process of operating
        and using RDAP without the need to maintain server-specific client

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

        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. Publication is being requested for "Proposed
        Standard" RFC because this document describes a protocol for which
        independently developed implementations are required to confirm
        specification suitability and correctness.

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

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.


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][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

        IDNITS produced 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 6
        comments (--).

        Miscellaneous warnings:

        -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
        sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
        '<CODE ENDS>' lines.

        The document does not have code but it has data structures examples
        which are illustrated as figures.

          Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

             (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
             references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

          -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OIDC'

          -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OIDCC'

          -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OIDCD'

          -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OIDCL'

          -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OIDCR'

        Please note that some of the references in version 23 show "httpss"
        instead of "https". This is possibly due to a bug in xml2rfc. The
        author will correct       this in the next version of the draft.

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


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


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.

        Yes. There are five normative references to non RFC documents. Here is
        the list:

        [OIDC]     OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Connect",

        [OIDCC]    OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Connect Core incorporating errata
        set 1", November 2014,

        [OIDCD]    OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0
        incorporating errata set 1", November 2014,

        [OIDCL]    OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Connect RP-Initiated Logout 1.0
              - draft 01", August 2020, <

        [OIDCR]    OpenID Foundation, "OpenID Connect Dynamic Client
              Registration 1.0 incorporating errata set 1", November
              2014, <

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?


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.


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 is consistent with the requirements listed in RFC 8126.
        Referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified and each
        registry has a specified initial contents, allocations procedures, and
        a reasonable name associated with it.

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.

    This document does create a new registry that operates under the
    "Specification Required" policy defined in RFC 8126. Instructions for the
    expert can be found at Section and are found to be clear.