(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 7484.
(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 specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested
scope, such as domain names, IP addresses, or Autonomous System numbers.
Working Group Summary:
There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial vis-à-vis the
updates that were made to the document. The author has 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
The document quality is high. The specification in this document has been
implemented on both the names and numbers sides. The Implementation Status
section lists few of those implementations.
Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (email@example.com)
Area Director: Murray Kucherawy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
(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 bootstrap registries for names and numbers are clearly specified using the
JSON format. The formats for internationalized domain names, IP addresses, and
AS numbers are normatively referenced. Since the Service URL arrays could
contain both HTTPS and HTTP URLs, the document recommends trying HTTPS first
for transport layer security.
(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, internationalized
domain names, IPv4, 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 7484
in this draft. The WGLC made clear that the WG review is 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 no nits.
(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, internationalized domain
names, IPv4, 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 7484.
The document directly references RFC 7484 in the Abstract and Introduction
sections. It further starts from RFC 7484 and has been modified according to
subsequent WG feedback and review.
(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
The Bootstrap Service Registries listed in the IANA Considerations section are
already operational and can be downloaded as JSON objects from
(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). Further, the names and numbers used in these examples are those
reserved for documentation use.
(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