(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 requested RFC type is Internet Standard.
If approved, this document would obsolete (replace) RFC 7483.
(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:
This document describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses.
Working Group Summary:
There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial vis-à-vis the updates that were made to the document. The authors have addressed the feedback in the latest draft. No real fundamental changes were made to the document as the changes were only meant to update the maturity level of the document to Internet Standard.
The document quality is high. Both RIRs and DNRs have implemented the specification in this document. The Implementation Status section lists few of them.
Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Area Director: Barry Leiba (email@example.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 clearly describes the structure of the RDAP responses for various lookup and search scenarios. It further specifies various field values registered with the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry. The security considerations are sufficiently succinct, including for cache-poisoning prevention. The internationalization considerations are well-written, including for internationalized domain names. The normative and informative references in the end are helpful.
(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 the 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. It satisfactorily leverages the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.
(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?
(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 7483 in this draft. There were other suggestions for changes, but those did not reach consensus and hence are not included.
A second Extended WGLC was needed for the WG participants to review the maturity level of the document to be elevated according to RFC 6410. In the first WGLC, the WG participants had only reviewed the changes made to the document, but it was unclear if the elevation requirements were reviewed. The second WGLC that asked specifically for the review of the elevation requirements got a strong consensus which indicated a strong support for elevating 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.)
(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 nits verification tool returns with couple of warnings. The first warning is for non-ASCII characters but these characters are needed because those examples are for IDN U-labels. The other warning is about text in the update log.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document references the normative RFCs on JSON, jCard, URI, web linking, DNSSEC, internationalized domain names, and IPv6 and ASN formats.
(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?
(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.
(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 7483.
RFC 7483 is not directly referenced in the Abstract and Introduction, but the document starts from RFC 7483 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).
The IANA Considerations section satisfactorily covers the registration of the “application/rdap+json” media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rdap+json) as well as the specification of the IANA RDAP JSON Values registry for notices and remarks, status, role, event action, and domain variant relation fields (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml).
Additionally, the RDAP Conformance section refers to the IANA RDAP Extensions registry for registering new extensions (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-extensions.xhtml).
This document has no new registration action for IANA since the aforementioned were registered as part of RFC 7483.
(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 JSON used in various examples has been verified using JSONLint (jsonlint.com).
(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?