Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc9154-07

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?

Proposed Standard is the requested type of RFC.  Discussions among the working
group led us to agree that this RFC fit best in the "A Technical Specification
is any description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention or format"
described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2026.  It is included 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 defines an operational practice, using the EPP RFCs, that
leverages the use of strong random authorization information values that are
short-lived, that are not stored by the client, and that are stored using a
cryptographic hash by the server to provide for secure authorization
information used for transfers.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?

The document has been discussed within the regext working group with the
authors addressing all comments by incorporating agreed upon changes into the
document.  There was nothing worthy of noting during the WG Process.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other
expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

CentralNic has a working implementation in their production environment as well
as two other gTLD registry systems, and two ccTLD registry systems.  Verisign
has implemented a full client and server stub implementation.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shephard is Jody Kolker, jkolker@godaddy.com
Area Director is Barry Leiba, barryleiba@computer.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.

As document shepherd I have verified all XML examples against RFC 5730, RFC
5731 and RFC 5733.

All normative references have been verified.

No IPR disclosures have been submitted for this document.

I've reviewed the mailing lists for the regext working group and have found no
remaining objections to this document.  I believe this document is ready for
publication.

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

No.

(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.

(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.

I have no specific concerns with this document.

(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?

Both authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures required for
full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been
filed.

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

No.

(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 has been my observation that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with
the document.

(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.

Document has been checked and corrected for all identified ID 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.

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

No.

(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).

Extensions for XML Namespace requested has been reviewed and verified that it
is listed correctly in the document. Extensions for the EPP Extension Registry
has been reviewed and verified that it is listed correctly 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.

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.

I have performed validation on the XML schemas provided in the document using
the publicly available XML validator available at
https://github.com/james-f-gould/EPP-Unhandled-Namespaces/tree/master/xmlvalidator-1.1.0.0.

(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.
Back