Subject: [regext] Status Change for RFCs 7480 and 7481

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 13:16:01 +0000

Folks, it makes sense think about changing the status of RFCs 7480 and 7481 from Proposed Standard to Standard as we do the same for RFCs 7482, 7483, and 7484. There are no know errata for 7480 and 7481 and no issues that we've discussed that require clarification, so it's possible to update the status of these RFCs without creating -bis Internet-Drafts. To do so, our AD can submit a status change request that includes some words of justification for the request. I've exchanged email with our AD and our chairs to consider some text and this is what we came up with. Please take a look and let me know if you have any issues or concerns:

PROPOSED TEXT:

RFCs 7480 ("HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)") and 7481 ("Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)") were published as Proposed Standards in March, 2015, along with RFCs 7482 ("Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format"), 7483 ("JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"), and 7484 ("Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service"). RFCs 7482 and 7483 were recently updated to address known errata and necessary clarifications based on implementation experience. The 7482bis and 7483bis Internet-Draft documents are currently under review by the IESG for publication as Internet Standards. These documents have normative dependencies on each other, and it makes sense to consider how the status of the complete document set can be appropriately updated.

RFCs 7480 and 7481 have no verified errata, and no known issues that require that the documents be updated prior to a change in status from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. RFC 7484 has known errata, and an Internet-Draft that addresses the errata and necessary clarifications is being considered for adoption by the REGEXT working group. The RFC 6410 requirements for "at least two independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience" and "no unused features in the specification that greatly increase implementation complexity" have been met. We should thus consider a change in status for RFCs 7480 and 7481 from Proposed Standard to Standard so that the entire set of RDAP RFCs is updated from Proposed Standard to Standard.

Scott