Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
> Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. 
> This version is dated 1 November 2019.
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
> this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
> title page header?

The type of RFC being requested is Proposed Standard, because the
document defines extensions to the existing RDAP protocol.  The type
is indicated in the title page header.

> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.
> Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for
> approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following
> sections:

Technical Summary:

    This document describes RDAP query extensions that allow clients
    to specify their preferences for sorting and paging result sets.
    This helps clients to find relevant results more easily, as well
    as improving server response times and reducing bandwidth

Working Group Summary:

    This document was posted to the WG back in mid-2017, and has been
    presented at IETF 100 and 103-106, as well as at the Registration
    Operations Workshop (#6).  There was nothing unusual process-wise,
    and no issues with consensus or similar.

Document Quality:

    There are two proof-of-concept implementations, and there were
    a number of reviews from within the group.  No expert review was


    Document Shepherd: Tom Harrison
    Responsible AD: TBD

> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
> by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not
> ready for publication, please explain why the document is being
> forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed the document in detail, which led
to a number of minor changes in the document, and is also responsible
for one of the proof-of-concept implementations.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.  The document has been reviewed by participants from both the
name and number communities.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or
> from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity,
> AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the
> review that took place.


> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
> Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she
> is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
> whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
> discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
> advance the document, detail those concerns here.


> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
> 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

The document authors have all confirmed they know of no needed
IPR disclosures.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.


> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with
> it?

It is more the former than the latter, but there was good support for
adoption, and no concerns have been raised by those who were
originally supportive.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)


> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See and the
> Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
> check needs to be thorough.

The idnits tool only reported false positives (e.g. due to RFC 8605
being listed as a normative reference, but the text not citing it in
the expected form).

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
> type reviews.


> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?


> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
> for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
> normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

The document depends on the 'JSON Path' specification
( normatively, in the sense
that JSON Paths are used in protocol responses.  However, since the
JSON Path specification does not meet the requirements for being
included as a normative reference, the document has XPath as a
normative reference (of which the JSON Path specification is an
adaptation) and the JSON Path specification as an informative

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
> 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
> Director in the Last Call procedure.


> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
> listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the
> RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why,
> and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this
> document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not
> in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.


> (17) 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 protocol extensions
> that the document makes are associated with the appropriate
> reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
> registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created
> IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
> contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
> registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new
> registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The document requests that two additional entries ('sorting' and
'paging') be added to the IANA RDAP Extensions Registry.  The requests
are consistent with the use of those values in the document.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
> future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
> find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.


> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG
> modules, etc.

The document contains ABNF rules, JSON documents, and JSON Path
strings.  The ABNR rules were validated with  The JSON documents were
validated using Perl's JSON::XS.  The JSON Path strings were validated
against the Goessner JS implementation and the Jayway Java
implementation (see

> (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has 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 RFC8342?