[regext] Protocol Action: 'Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-06.txt)

[The IESG]

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service'
  (draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-06.txt) as Internet Standard

This document is the product of the Registration Protocols Extensions Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Francesca Palombini.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/





Technical Summary

This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data Access 
Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for a requested 
scope, such as domain names, IP addresses, or Autonomous System numbers.

Working Group Summary

There was constructive WG feedback and nothing controversial vis-à-vis the 
updates that were made to the document. The author has addressed the feedback 
in the latest draft. No real fundamental changes were made to the document as 
the changes were only meant to update the maturity level of the document to 
Internet Standard.

Document Quality

The document quality is high. The specification in this document has been 
implemented on both the names and numbers sides. The Implementation Status 
section lists few of those implementations.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Jasdip Singh (jasd...@arin.net)
Area Director: Murray Kucherawy (superu...@gmail.com)

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:05 PM Marc Blanchet 
wrote:

> > 1. -
> >
> > FP: Please replace references to RFC 7234 with
> draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19.
>
> I have a hard time thinking to replace an RFC reference to a draft in
> a document that would become an Internet Standard. Moreover, I think the
> reference is more about “please look at ways to cache data” more than a
> hard requirement. So I disagree with your proposal. The new -05 do not
> contain any change in that regard. So I’m looking for your reply if you
> still want me to change the reference
>

Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cache has been approved by the IESG, I think
Francesca's suggestion is appropriate.  Otherwise, this Internet Standard
will be published with a reference to a document we already know to be
obsolete, which seems like an odd choice.  Changing the reference won't
delay publication of this document since the referenced document is already
in the RFC Editor queue anyway; it'll ship before this one does.

I can have the RFC Editor make this change prior to AUTH48 rather than
delay it since it's otherwise an approved document.

-MSK
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Marc Blanchet]

> Le 1 févr. 2022 à 19:51, Murray S. Kucherawy  a écrit :
> 
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:05 PM Marc Blanchet  > wrote:
> > 1. -
> > 
> > FP: Please replace references to RFC 7234 with draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19.
> 
> I have a hard time thinking to replace an RFC reference to a draft in a 
> document that would become an Internet Standard. Moreover, I think the 
> reference is more about “please look at ways to cache data” more than a hard 
> requirement. So I disagree with your proposal. The new -05 do not contain any 
> change in that regard. So I’m looking for your reply if you still want me to 
> change the reference
> 
> Since draft-ietf-httpbis-cache has been approved by the IESG, I think 
> Francesca's suggestion is appropriate.  Otherwise, this Internet Standard 
> will be published with a reference to a document we already know to be 
> obsolete, which seems like an odd choice.  Changing the reference won't delay 
> publication of this document since the referenced document is already in the 
> RFC Editor queue anyway; it'll ship before this one does.
> 
> I can have the RFC Editor make this change prior to AUTH48 rather than delay 
> it since it's otherwise an approved document.
> 

Fine by me!

Marc. 

> -MSK

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext