Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-03

[Ballot comment]
Section 1:
"Servers MUST return an
  HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC7231] response to inform clients of
  unsupported query types."

I don't really like when already in the introduction one leaps into normative statements. Doesn't this statement more belong in either Query processing or extensibility?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. I found the document clear and easy to read.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2 --
Please use BCP14 template (cfr RFC 8714).

-- Section 3.1.1 --
CIDR RFC 4632 only applies to IPv4... and also uses the words 'prefix length' rather than 'bitmask length'.

"2001:db8::0" is not following the RFC 5952 that is RECOMMENDED just a couple of paragraphs above ;-)

== NITS ==

Like Ben Kaduk, I wonder why using a 16-bit value for US-ASCII "('*', US-ASCII value 0x002A)"...

[Ballot comment]
I concur with Alissa and others that this should make the disposition of RFC 7482 more explicit.

"REST" in the glossary is only ever used to defined the next term in it, "RESTful".  It seems to me these could be consolidated.

In Section 4.1:

  If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request
  because it does not support a particular style of partial match
  searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 (Unprocessable Entity)
  [RFC4918] response.

Why's that only a SHOULD?  What else might an implementer choose to do, and why might that be a reasonable thing to do?  Or if there's no good answer to this, maybe that should be a MUST?

Thanks for including Section 7.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for keeping the diff from RFC 7482 minimal -- that made things
very easy to read!

I have just a few actually substantive comments, followed by a number
of editorial/nit-level remarks.  (I recognize that actually doing
anything about many of them would be counter to the "keep diff from RFC
7482 minimal" goal I just complimented, so I don't expect all of them
to be addressed or even get a response.)

My understanding (based on the draft name and shepherd writeup) is that
this document is intended to Obsolete: RFC 7482.  If so, that should be
indicated in the header, abstract, and introduction, as (in my
understanding) the Gen-ART reviewer pointed out.

Additionally, the specification of the search path segment in Section
3.2 seems to be an attempt to replicate the generic HTTP (or even URI)
query string concept, but unfortunately it seems to not quite succeed.
Specifically, it says that the "HTTP query string is formed" with a
single pair of noun/property and search pattern (separated by equals
sign), but a generic query string allows multiple simultaneous queries,
as in
https://example.com/rdap/domains?nsLdhName=*.example.com&nsIp=192.0.2.1
It seems that we may be inadvertently in conflict with the foundational
protocol specification here, and I'm not sure if there are mitigating
factors that make it okay to limit to a single query parameter in a
divergence from the core HTTP behavior.

Also, for Section 2, RFC 8174 has an updated BCP 14 boilerplate text to
use.

On to the nits...

Throughout, we use a four-hex-digit representation of ASCII characters
(e.g., "US-ASCII value 0x002A").  Wouldn't two hex digits suffice?

Section 1

  The patterns described in this document purposefully do not encompass
  all of the methods employed in the WHOIS and other RESTful web
  services used by the RIRs and DNRs.  The intent of the patterns
  described here is to enable queries of:
  [...]

Is the intent to just not offer a replacement for (all of) those, or is
there other work to fill the gaps?  (Has the landscape changed since RFC
7482 was published?)  I suspect the first answer is to not offer full
replacement, given the later paragraph that responses to these queries
may continue to reference the other services, but it seems worth
checking.

  Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for

(nit) maybe s/standards/specifications/?  It's a long slog to STD...

  WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services.  Therefore, URL
  [RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to
  the HTTP [RFC7231] GET and HEAD methods.

(side note) HTTP defines "safe" methods that might be a more
future-proof characterization, though I don't think there's harm in
leaving this alone.  (I mention it only due to a pedantic objection to
the use of the word "therefore", since the chain of reasoning is
arguably incomplete.)

Section 3

  of RFC 3986 [RFC3986].  For example, if the base URL is
  "https://example.com/rdap/", all RDAP query URLs will begin with
  "https://example.com/rdap/".

(editorial) Do we want to say that the examples in the rest of the file
assume this value of the base URL?

  The bootstrap registry does not contain information for query objects

(nit) This is the first instance of the word "bootstrap" in *this*
document (vs RFC 7484), so we are implicitly defining the registry as a
"bootstrap registry" unless we push the reader more strongly to read RFC
7484 before this one.  It might be a little friendlier to the reader to
introduce the "bootstrap" concept earlier and/or separately, e.g., as
part of introducing the registry.

  For help, a base URL is retrieved for any service (domain, address,
  etc.) for which additional information is required.  The query URL is
  constructed by concatenating the base URL to the help path segment
  specified in Section 3.1.6.

nit: I suggest s/concatenating ... to/concatenating ... with/, since the
"to" form seems to leave the help path segment as the primary subject of
the expression (which might lead the reader to think that it should go
first).

Section 3.1.2

  The following URL would be used to find information describing 4-byte
  Autonomous System number 65538:

(side note) Is the distinction between 2- and 4-byte AS numbers useful
to make anymore?

Section 3.2.3

  XXXX is a search pattern representing the "fn" property of an entity
  (such as a contact, registrant, or registrar) name as described in
  Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis].  [...]

(nit) 7483bis seems to not actually define the "fn" property, instead
deferring to jCard (RFC 7095), which in turn defers to vCard (RFC 6350),
which is perhaps a bit long of a reference chain to ask the reader to
follow.

Section 4.1

  Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', US-ASCII value
  0x002A) character to match zero or more trailing characters.  A
  character string representing a domain label suffix MAY be
  concatenated to the end of the search pattern to limit the scope of
  the search.  [...]

As written, this seems like it would allow a domain label suffix to be
concatenated to the end of (e.g.) an entity or full-name search, which
seems a bit bizzare.  Not wrong per se, just ... surprising.

  Clients SHOULD NOT submit a partial match search of Unicode
  characters where a Unicode character may be legally combined with
  another Unicode character or characters.  [...]

nit: I suggest clarifying which of "a Unicode character" and "another
Unicode character or characters" are in the literal sent by the client
and which are to be in the asterisk expansion.

Section 6.1

                                                          Strings are
  normalized using Normalization Form C (NFC) [Unicode-UAX15]; note
  that clients might not be able to do this reliably.  [...]

Is this note still accurate now?

Section 7

(side note) I get the impression that the implementations listed here
are all client-side, with the server half of the query functionality
being rolled into the server (response) behavior of RFC 7483(bis), and
thus that I should not read anything into the lack of claimed server
implementations.

Section 9

There are perhaps security/privacy considerations relating to returning
domain names as a function of the associated nameserver (in terms of the
consolidated list not necessarily being readily available elsewhere),
but since it's essentially still available by scraping techniques the
risk is not very great.

                                                          Server
  operators can also reduce their risk by restricting the amount of
  information returned in response to a search request.

Is this the risk of DoS-via-resource-consumption or some other risk
(e.g., the privacy risk covered in the following paragraph)?
If the latter, clarification might be in order.

Section 10.1

We only reference RFCs 5730 and 5733 once, as "For example, for some
DNRs, contact identifiers are specified in [RFC5730] and [RFC5733]".
Since that is just an example, it doesn't seem like those would need to
be classified as normative.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  Only one minor comment:

It wasn't clear to me whether the Appendix "Changes from RFC 7482" was going to be kept - there is no RFC editor note to suggest that it be removed.

Generally, I think that have a short section explaining how a RFC has changed from a previously published version is helpful.  But if this is kept, then I would try and condense this text down to the list of important changes from RFC 7482.  E.g., added "implementation status" wouldn't apply if that is going to be stripped before the RFC is published.

Regards,
Rob

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-02-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Mario Loffredo , barryleiba@gmail.com, draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis@ietf.org, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it, regext-chairs@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format'
  as Internet 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 2021-02-08. 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 describes uniform patterns to construct HTTP URLs that
  may be used to retrieve registration information from registries
  (including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name
  Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns.  These
  uniform patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data
  Access Protocol (RDAP).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc1166: Internet numbers (Informational - Legacy stream)
    rfc4918: HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc5396: Textual Representation of Autonomous System (AS) Numbers (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc5891: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7230: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7231: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7480: HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7481: Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc7484: Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)

(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 Internet Standard.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

(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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors addressed the feedback in the latest draft. Finally, the WG members agreed about elevating the document to "Internet Standard" status considering that no substantial changes were made to RFC 7482 and the document included both significant and mature implementations.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

There was a strong WG consensus for the changes made to the existing RFC 7482 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft.

A second Extended WGLC was requested to review the maturity level of the document in order to elevate it from “Proposed Standard” to "Internet Standard” status according to the process described in RFC6410. In the first WGLC, the WG members had merely reviewed the document as "Proposed Standard" because it was not clear that the authors intended to propose it as "Internet Standard".
The second WGLC that asked specifically for the review of the elevation requirements got a strong consensus which indicated strong support for the elevation of this document to “Internet Standard”

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The following ID nits have been found:

- there are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs;
- the normative reference I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis is outdated as a later version (-04) exists. However, since RFC7482bis and RFC7483bis reference each other, this ID nit will be fixed only during their publication;
- the normative reference Unicode-UAX15 is outdated as a later version (February 2020) exists.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

Two downward normative references, namely RFC 952 and RFC 1166, are inherited from RFC 7482.

(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.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A

(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 since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. This draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

(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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

There was a strong WG consensus for the changes made to the existing RFC 7482 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The following ID nits have been found:

- there are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs;
- the normative reference I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis is outdated as a later version (-04) exists. However, since RFC7482bis and RFC7483bis reference each other, this ID nit will be fixed only during their publication;
- the normative reference Unicode-UAX15 is outdated as a later version (February 2020) exists.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

Two downward normative references, namely RFC 952 and RFC 1166, are inherited from RFC 7482.

(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.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A

(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 since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. This draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

(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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

There was a strong WG consensus for the changes made to the existing RFC 7482 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The following ID nits have been found:

- there are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs;
- the normative reference I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis is outdated as a later version (-04) exists. However, since RFC7482bis and RFC7483bis reference each other, this ID nit will be fixed only during their publication;
- the normative reference Unicode-UAX15 is outdated as a later version (February 2020) exists.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

Two downward normative references, namely RFC 952 and RFC 1166, are inherited from RFC 7482.

(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.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A

(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 since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. This draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

(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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

There was a strong WG consensus for the changes made to the existing RFC 7482 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The following ID nits have been found:

- there are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs;
- the normative reference I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis is outdated as a later version (-04) exists
- the normative reference Unicode-UAX15 is outdated as a later version (February 2020) exists

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

Two downward normative references, namely RFC 952 and RFC 1166, are inherited from RFC 7482.

(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.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A

(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 since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. This draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

(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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

There was a strong WG consensus for the changes made to the existing RFC 7482 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

None found.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

Two donward normative references, namely RFC 952 and RFC 1166, are inherited from RFC 7482.

(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.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A

(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 since it will eventually become part of a Standards Track set of RDAP RFCs. This draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its header.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

(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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

There was a strong WG consensus for the changes made to the existing RFC 7482 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

None found.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

None.

(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.

If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7482.

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A

(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 aims to replace a previous Standards Track document, i.e. RFC 7482,  that is already part of RDAP RFCs. This draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its 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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

Absolutely solid. The WG has reached strong consensus for the changes made to RFC 7482. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and are hence not included in the draft. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

None found.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

None.

(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.

Obsoletes RFC 7482 (as replacement)

RFC 7482 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7482 and has been modified according to subsequent WG feedback and reviews.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A

(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 aims to replace a previous Standards Track document that is already part of RDAP RFCs. This draft has “Intended status: Standards Track” in its 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 addresses reported corrections and clarifications about the content of RFC7482 that dealt with Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query capabilities implemented by using HTTP GET and HEAD methods.

Working Group Summary:

There has always been constructive feedback but nothing controversial. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft.

Document Quality:

The document quality is high. It includes a significant number of implementations that are representative of RDAP stakeholders.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Mario Loffredo (mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (barryleiba@gmail.com)

(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, has actively joined the WG discussion about feedback, has verified that concepts described in this document are both theoretically well-founded and technically feasible through a test implementation.
The Shepherd considers the document ready for publication.

(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 carefully and extensively reviewed by WG members.

(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.

No. The document already accounts for IDNs in dealing with RDAP queries on domains and nameservers.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

N/A

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted.

(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?

Absolutely solid. The WG has always reached a general consensus on every feedback after a fruitful discussion. 

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

None found.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No.

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

None.

(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.

No.

(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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(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.

N/A

(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 Shepherd has verified that all the query patterns presented in this document are compliant with the HTTP GET and HEAD methods as defined in RFC7231.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

N/A