draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec has been presented to the ISE for
publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Stream.
The ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) has been running for some time.
This document describes the requirements, the architecture and the
TMCH and Domain Name Registries and Registrars for the purpose of
provisioning and management of domain names during Sunrise and Trademark
This document has a long history within the REGEXT working group. It was
developed and reviewed there, and passed WG last call before being
passed to the AD (Barry Leiba). Barry rejected the document because it
was not really describing an IETF protocol, but simply documenting
The document was first brought to the ISE in June 2020 at revision -10,
almost a year after Barry had rejected it. We should possibly have
changed the name of the draft, but we didn't.
The ISE checked with the current AD (Murray) and the REGEXT chairs that
they were OK with ISE publication and they had no concerns.
Publication is considered on two grounds:
- Visibility of the workings of this system is useful and informative
for the Internet community.
- This document was "blocked" by an AD despite having the consensus of
a working group.
That this is not IETF work is implicit in the document title, the
Abstract, and the Introduction where it clearly describes the work as
being a description of ICANN's TMCH.
The relatively short Security Considerations section, and even shorter
Privacy Considerations section, appear to cover the essential points.
This document requests IANA to register two URIs. After discussion with
the Designated Expert (Martin Thomson) and with the AD (Murray), it
became clear that the requested URIs come from the wrong place in the
tree. However, the URIs are already in use in the field (since 2012),
and it seems unlikely that any attempts to fix the URIs would be
unsuccessful. It is considered better to register squats than leave them
unregistered, so the DE agreed that the requested registration should go
In order to flag this up, the following text has been added to the IANA
The code point assigned in support of this document is taken from the
wrong point in the registration tree. Unfortunately, the code point
has already been deployed in the field without following the proper
registration review process. The Designated Experts for the registry
have considered the issues that correcting this action would cause
for deployed implementations and have consented to the continued use
of the code point.
Please also note that it is unclear to the ISE what the "registrant contact"
should be for the two URIs. The document currently shows...
| Registrant Contact: IETF <firstname.lastname@example.org>
...and this is probably wrong. The DE agrees that this may be wrong, but
we are unsure what it should be changed to:
- the IESG?
- a contact at ICANN?
- left as the WG for community oversight?
The authors and ISE will happily make a change as requested.
Obviously, the document was reviewed by the REGEXT working group.
Additionally, it received reviews from the ISE and from Martin Thomson
acting as DE.
The reviews led to a number of updates to fully address the issues
Details of the reviews can be retrieved on request.
======== Please note that below this line it the original IETF Stream Shepherd
(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?
This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
The status has been chosen as this documents describes one specific
implementation of the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) function. Specifically,
it describes the ICANN implementation, used by almost all new gTLDs. Due to its
wide spread use the working group considered this worth documenting.
(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 the requirements, the architecture and the
interfaces between the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and
Domain Name Registries as well as between the ICANN TMCH and
Domain Name Registrars for the provisioning and management of
domain names during Sunrise and Trademark Claims Periods.
Working Group Summary:
This draft is one of the oldest items on the regext wg working list.
The working group decided for this document to be informational because it does
not describe a generic way of TMCH function, but it is a detailed description
of the ICANN implemented TMCH function.
For a long time this document has been blocked by the
draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd which it uses as a normative reference. Additionally
progress was stopped by discussions on the ICANN side about the TMCH process
The author has answered to questions and comments from the working group.
New version of the document reflected the discussion on the list.
Comments and change requests from the WGLC have been addressed.
The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by
almost all new gTLDs.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.
(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 shepherd has verified that this document indeed describes the process and
architecture ICANN used in the gTLD program. The XML example has been validated
against the XML schema provided in the draft by the Document Shepherd.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
Several implementors have reviewed the document and found it to be a good
representation of ICANNs implementation requirements.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, the author has confirmed full conformance to BCP 78 and 79.
(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 disclosure has been filed.
(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?
No disagreement on mailing list or at in person meetings. Strong agreement that
this document describes the ICANN TMCH implementation.
(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 author has fixed all nits found by the shepherd.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No review needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, in fact references are one of the main reason this document took so long
to go through the working group.
(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 references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
The document contains no downward references.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the XML
schema for the namespace definitions.
(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.
All XML examples in the document have been validated against the schema
provided in the document.
(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
The document does not contain a YANG module.