ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Functional Specifications
RFC 9361

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9361, changed title to 'ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Functional Specifications', changed abstract to '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.', changed pages to 50, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2023-03-09, changed IESG state to RFC Published, changed ISE state to Published RFC)

draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec has been presented to the ISE for
publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Stream.

==Purpose==

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
Claims Periods.

== History==

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
ICANN's deployment.

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.

==Non-IETF Work==

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.

==Security Considerations==

The relatively short Security Considerations section, and even shorter
Privacy Considerations section, appear to cover the essential points.

==IANA==

Note well!

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
ahead.

In order to flag this up, the following text has been added to the IANA
considerations section...

  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
...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.

==Reviews==

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
raised.

Details of the reviews can be retrieved on request.


======== Please note that below this line it the original IETF Stream Shepherd Write-up =========

(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:

Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

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.

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.

None

(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.)

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

None

(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 RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

(Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/ISE:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has questions about this document's IANA Considerations section.

First, we understand that XML ns registration urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:tmNotice-1.0 and XML schema registration urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:tmNotice-1.0 should be registered at https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry. These registrations are currently being reviewed by the designated experts.

The IANA Considerations section also states the following:

  "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."

What registry and code point are being referred to?

Should the code point be marked some way in the registry in order to indicate that it shouldn't be assigned in the future (for example, if the designated experts were to change)?

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec has been presented to the ISE for
publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Stream.

==Purpose==

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
Claims Periods.

== History==

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
IANA's deployment.

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.

==Non-IETF Work==

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.

==Security Considerations==

The relatively short Security Considerations section, and even shorter
Privacy Considerations section, appear to cover the essential points.

==IANA==

Note well!

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
ahead.

In order to flag this up, the following text has been added to the IANA
considerations section...

  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
...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.

==Reviews==

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
raised.

Details of the reviews can be retrieved on request.


======== Please note that below this line it the original IETF Stream Shepherd Write-up =========

(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:

Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

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.

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.

None

(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.)

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

None

(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 RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec has been presented to the ISE for
publication as an Informational RFC on the Independent Stream.

==Purpose==

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
Claims Periods.

== History==

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
IANA's deployment.

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.

==Non-IETF Work==

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.

==Security Considerations==

The relatively short Security Considerations section, and even shorter
Privacy Considerations section, appear to cover the essential points.

==IANA==

Note well!

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
ahead.

In order to flag this up, the following text has been added to the IANA
considerations section...

  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.

==Reviews==

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
raised.

Details of the reviews can be retrieved on request.


======== Please note that below this line it the original IETF Stream Shepherd Write-up =========

(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:

Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

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.

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.

None

(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.)

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

None

(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 RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

======== Please note that below this line it the original IETF Stream Shepherd Write-up =========

(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:

Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

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.

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.

None

(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.)

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

None

(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 RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

(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:

Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

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.

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.

None

(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.)

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

None

(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 RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

(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:

Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

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.

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.

None

(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.)

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

None

(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 RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

(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:

Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

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.

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.

None

(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 mailinglist 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.)

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

None

(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 RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

Document status

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.


Technical Summary

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 and implementation.

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.


Document Quality:

The process and architecture described in this document has been implemented by almost all new gTLDs.


Personnel:

Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.



The XML example has been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions.

Currently there are no idnits.

No IPR has been filed.

1. Technical Summary

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.

This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.


2. Review and Consensus

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 and implementation.

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.


3. IPR

No IPR has been filed.


4. Other
The XML example has been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions.

1. Technical Summary

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.

This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.


2. Review and Consensus
This draft is one of the oldest items on the regext wg working list.
For a long time this document has been blocked by the draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd which it uses as a normative reference.
When draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd  became RFC 7848  it took some time to pick up this work item again.
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.


3. IPR

No IPR has been filed.

4. Other

All EPP XML examples have been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions. Additionally it requests IANA
to insert the document in the EPP Extension Registry.

1. Technical Summary

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.

This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.


2. Review and Consensus
This draft is one of the oldest items on the regext wg working list.
For a long time this document has been blocked by the draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd which it uses as a normative reference.
When draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd  became RFC 7848  it took some time to pick up this work item again.
The author has answered to uestions and comments from the working group.
New version of the document reflected the discussion on the list.


3. IPR

No IPR has been filed.

4. Other

All EPP XML examples have been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions. Additionally it requests IANA
to insert the document in the EPP Extension Registry.

1. Technical Summary

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.

This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.


2. Review and Consensus


3. IPR

No IPR has been filed.

4. Other

All EPP XML examples have been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions. Additionally it requests IANA
to insert the document in the EPP Extension Registry.

1. Technical Summary

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.

This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.


2. Review and Consensus


3. IPR

No IPR has been filed.

4. Other

All EPP XML examples have been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions. Additionally it requests IANA
to insert the document in the EPP Extension Registry.

1. Technical Summary

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.

This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.


2. Review and Consensus


3. IPR

No IPR has been filed.

4. Other

All EPP XML examples have been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions. Additionally it requests IANA
to insert the document in the EPP Extension Registry.

Technical Summary:

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.

This document is submitted for consideration as Informational.
Ulrich Wisser is the Document Shepherd.
Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.

2. Review and Consensus


3. IPR
No IPR has been filed.

4. Other

All EPP XML examples have been validated against the XML schema provided
in the draft by the Document Shepherd.

This document requests IANA to register a new XML namespace URI and the
XML schema for the namespace definitions. Additionally it requests IANA
to insert the document in the EPP Extension Registry.

As explained in the IETF 106 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-regext-tmch-functional-specification), I would like to have a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec).

The document is currently in parked status waiting to solve issues identified in the mailing list.

More information about the issues raised on the mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/VDA8hIp2jvSQzUgyCpfguKmlHp8

Two actions were taken after further engagement with Patrik:
A new version of the Implementing the Matching Rules was published:
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-14jul16-en.pdf. Previous version: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-24sep12-en.pdf
The TMCH implementer confirmed that the flag TransitionalProcessing is set to false in the PERL library Net::IDN::UTS46 (i.e., mapper function).

It's my understanding that no further issues need to be solved with the document, and it can continue on the IETF process.

As explained in the IETF 106 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-regext-tmch-functional-specification), I would like to have a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec).

The document is currently in parked status waiting to solve issues identified in the mailing list.

More information about the issues raised on the mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/VDA8hIp2jvSQzUgyCpfguKmlHp8

Two actions were taken after further engagement with Patrik:
A new version of the Implementing the Matching Rules was published:
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-14jul16-en.pdf. Previous version: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-24sep12-en.pdf
The TMCH implementer confirmed that the flag TransitionalProcessing is set to false in the PERL library Net::IDN::UTS46 (i.e., mapper function).

It's my understanding that no further issues need to be solved with the document, and it can continue on the IETF process.

Although this document specifies how the TMCH currently works in the ICANN context, it is being held up because there are technical issues with the process.  IDN experts state there are problems and these need to be fixed before this document can be published.  An open question is whether to publish the right way to do things or change the process at ICANN first and then resubmit the document.

Per discussion on the mailing list October 2016 and with AD (Alissa Cooper), the definitions here are derived from existing ICANN policy as opposed to being the source of the definitions, which suggests that informational is more appropriate than proposed standard.