Update to the ipn URI scheme
draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-13

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Marco Tiloca for his ARTART reviews.

I support Roman's DISCUSS.

Appendix A uses a BCP 14 keyword, and (as discussed on another document this week) that's a bit of an antipattern.  This should probably move into a numbered section.

I'm not comfortable with the SHOULD in Section 3.2.  I suggest "are to be".  Why might a registrant legitimately deviate from this constraint?  If such situations exist, does the advice to DEs given later in this document cover that case?  Or if I'm misunderstanding something, please set me straight.

The SHOULD NOTs in Sections 5.4 and 5.5 are curious.  Why aren't they MUST NOTs?  Or should they be lowercased?  If you're identifying a risky behavior here that may have downstream side effects, I'd suggest tightening this to a MUST NOT.  Or if instead it's just a weird thing to do but doesn't really matter, maybe it's not worth constraining.  Otherwise, you're leaving the implementer with a choice, and I wonder how you expect them to make it.

NIT(s):

* This, in Section 3.1, reads oddly:

"No resource identified by Null ipn URI exists, and any such resource is therefore by definition unreachable."

The part after the comma is ascribing a property to something that doesn't exist (or to all members of an empty set).  I would just end the sentence at the comma.

* In Section 9.3, it seems weird to put the Example block right in the middle of the Specification Required range.  Is that just because of the apparent 0xEEE* convention?  Maybe there should be a "Examples" block in Table 5 instead?

[Ballot discuss]
** The meta-data of this document says RFC9171 and 7116 are updated.  This document would benefit from very specifically identifying what parts of those documents are being “patched” (aka, updated) by this document.  How does a reader combine this document with 7116 and 9171?  For example, my read is that Appendix A of this document replaces Section 4.2.5.1.2 of RFC9171.

** Backwards compatibility
-- Section 1
  By updating [RFC7116] and [RFC9171], this document updates the
  specification of the ipn URI scheme, in a backwards-compatible way,
  to provide needed improvements both in the scheme itself and its
  usage to specify EIDs with BPv7.

-- Section 7.1
  The ipn scheme update that has been presented in this document
  preserves backwards compatibility with any ipn URI scheme going back
  to the provisional definition of the ipn scheme in the experimental
  Compressed Bundle Header Encoding [RFC6260] specification in 2011.

I need help better understanding how the redefinition of the ipn scheme in Appendix A is backwards compatible with RFC7116 or RFC9171. If I have an RFC9171-compliant implementation, the “IPN scheme parser” is using Section 4.2.5.1.2 of RFC9171 – that is, it has no knowledge of the fqnn/allocator identifier.  This RFC9171 implementation would not be interoperable with an implementation that emits an ipn scheme defined this draft since it couldn’t parse the allocator identifier (e.g., “ipn:0:1:2” or “ip:!:2”).  An RFC9171 implementation’s of ipn will always be understand by implementions of this draft, but the reverse is not true.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Russ Housley for the GENART review.

Mahesh and Francesca already covered what I would have said about cross-stream coordination and cross-documents status updates.

** Section 3.2.1
  An Allocator Identifier range is a set of consecutive Allocator
  Identifiers associated with the same Allocator.  Each individual
  Allocator Identifier in a given range SHOULD be assigned to a
  distinct sub-organization of the Allocator.  Assigning identifiers in
  this way allows external observers both to associate individual
  Allocator Identifiers with a single organization and to usefully
  differentiate amongst sub-organizations.

Given that it is not mandatory for allocator identifiers to be assigned to distinct sub-organizations, why would there be a belief that “external observers [can] associate individual Allocator Identifiers with a single organization and to usefully differentiate amongst sub-organizations.”  It appears that an external observer can make no assumptions about sub-organizations without additional information.

** Per the shepherd write-up (thank you Scott Burleigh!)

-- “The sole erratum against RFC 7116 was documented by one of the authors of the present document and has been addressed in this new specification.  However, the I-D does not state explicitly that it addresses that erratum.”  It would have been helpful to call out which errata was addressed here

-- “No IANA assignments are requested.” That doesn’t appear to be accurate.

[Ballot comment]
I support Mahesh's DISCUSS. I'm not particularly concerned about a Proposed Standard updating an Informational, but I am concerned about an IETF spec updating an IRTF spec without prior coordination between the respective bodies, which I don't see mentioned in the shepherd writeup or elsewhere. I don't imagine the IRTF would object but it seems prudent to ask and poor form not to.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Although the "Updates" tag is quite undefined, and so there is nothing explicitly prohibiting a standard track RFC to update an Informational RFC, I also think this is non-optimal. One possible resolution would be to analyse why is this "Updates" tag needed, and if it is not absolutely necessary remove the "Updates: 7116". Another resolution would be to do what Russ suggests (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/juHW-YYZ1lesibNd0gDxRvFE0HY/): this document and a companion document ought to obsolete RFC 7116, where the companion document separately handles all of the non-ipn topics in RFC 7116. The companion document can be an informational RFC. This would be cleaner (process-wise), but would take more time, and I also understand some participants would rather not obsolete 7116 (although it seems to me referencing its updating document should be trivial).

Finally, if the "Updates" tag was kept I would follow the same process as for "cross stream updates" https://www.irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html and request a review from the IRTF stream manager.

Side note: while scanning 7116, it seems to me that the actual RFC defining the concepts (from which 7116 defines IANA registries) is 6260. Is that wrong, did I miss something? Note that the same comment as above would apply, since 6260 is also an IRTF informational doc.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document. Please find below some non-blocking comments (but a reply will be appreciated).

Jean-Michel Combes is the int-dir reviewer for this document, expect a review by Jean-Michel before end of this week at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update/reviewrequest/19784/

The shepherd write-up contains a nugget `The specification is intended to be Standards Track eventually but has not yet been implemented.` ;-) does not help to comfort the choice of PS.

It is really unclear what are the updates to RFC 7116 and 9171. It complements for sure those RFC but not clearly updating/changing the text. Suggest remove the update in abstract and meta-data.

Section 3.3, `A single Node Number assigned by a single Allocator MUST refer to a single node` also means that there is neither "any cast" or "multicast" nodes. Is it on purpose ?

Section 3.4.2, I would have prefer selecting 1 as the local node to be similar to ::1 or 127.0.0.1 ;-)

Section 3.4.3, being far from being a DTN expert, I really wonder what is the use case for private node numbers... RFC 1918 motivation was largely address space conservation. Moreover, why imposing rules on the node numbering as the Allocator Identifier is enough to provide uniqueness.

Section 3.5, it there any limit on the service number ?

Section 4 and appendix A, my preference is to have normative text in the middle part of an RFC not in appendix.

Section 9.1, in table 2 using hexadecimal for range could also be useful (or even plain decimal format as the textual representation is in decimal), also to make an easier link with table 3.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Tim Wicinski for the Ops-Dir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2024-02-13/)

For the record I see no issues with a Standards Track document updating an Informational one -- if the situation were reversed I could see an issue, but...

[Ballot comment]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 3.2.1, paragraph 10
> EE090 belong to organization C. Organisation D has a single Allocator Identi
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("organisation" and "organization") within
a single text.

Section 6, paragraph 2
> umber. The FQNN encoding MUST be a 64 bit unsigned integer constructed in the
>                                    ^^^^^^
When "64-bit" is used as a modifier, it is usually spelled with a hyphen.

[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-11
CC @OR13

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-11.txt&submitcheck=True

Thanks for Marco Tiloca for the ART ART Review, and to the authors for addressing his comments.

## Comments

### Cross domain private use

```
441   Because of this lack of uniqueness, any implementation of a protocol
442   using ipn URIs that resides on the border between administrative
443   domains must have suitable mechanisms in place to prevent protocol
444   units using such "Private Use" Node Numbers to cross between
445   different administrative domains.
```

Should this "must" be normative MUST or SHOULD?

Later we see:

```
563   administrative domain.  This means that any bundle using a Private
564   Use ipn EID as a bundle source or bundle destination MUST NOT be
565   allowed to cross administrative domains.  All implementations that
566   could be deployed as a gateway between administrative domains MUST be
567   sufficiently configurable to ensure that this is enforced, and
568   operators MUST ensure correct configuration.

570   Private Use ipn EIDs SHOULD NOT be present in any other part of a
571   bundle that is destined for another administrative domain when the
572   lack of uniqueness prevents correct operation.  For example, a
573   Private Use ipn EID SHOULD NOT be used as a Bundle Protocol Security
574   [RFC9172] security source EID for a bundle, when the bundle is
575   destined for a different administrative domain.
```

Why not MUST, or when can this SHOULD be ignored.

### ! clarity

```
472   3.  If the Allocator Identifier is zero (0), and the Node Number is
473       2^32-1, i.e., the URI is a LocalNode ipn URI (Section 3.4.2),
474       then the character '!'  MAY be used instead of the digits
475       4294967295, although both forms are valid encodings.
```

Can this be made a SHOULD? Is there really no preferred text encoding for this case?

### 538 5.4.  LocalNode ipn EIDs

```
550   LocalNode ipn EIDs SHOULD NOT be present in any other part of a
551   bundle that is transmitted off of the local node.  For example, a
552   LocalNode ipn EID SHOULD NOT be used as a Bundle Protocol Security
553   [RFC9172] security source EID for a bundle transmitted from the local
554   bundle node, because such a source EID would have no meaning at a
555   downstream bundle node.
```

Why not MUST NOT?


### Consider promoting examples from appendix for readability

```
659   For example the ipn EID of ipn:977000.100.1 has an FQNN of
660   (977000,100) which would be encoded as 0xEE86800000064.  The
661   resulting two-element array [0xEE86800000064, 0x01] would be encoded
662   in CBOR as the 11 octet value 0x821B000EE8680000006401.
```

Consider a commented hex representation of this value:

```
82                    # array(2)
  1B 000EE86800000064 # unsigned(4196183048192100)
  01                  # unsigned(1)
```

Same comment for the 3 element example that follows:

```
83            # array(3)
  1A 000EE868 # unsigned(977000)
  18 64      # unsigned(100)
  01          # unsigned(1)
```

I was initially expecting to see a tagged example based on:

```
618   URI text string.  Alternatively, Section 3.4.5.3 of [RFC8949] allows
619   for the encoding of URIs as CBOR text strings identified with a CBOR
620   tag value of 32.
```

I think it might be worth recommending against the text encoded representation, similar to the recommendation:

```
689   value zero (0).  In this case using the two-element encoding will
690   result in a more concise CBOR representation, and it is RECOMMENDED
691   that implementations do so.
```

### When SHOULD they?

```
817   The concept of "late binding" is preserved in this ipn URI scheme.
818   Elements of an ipn URI SHOULD NOT be regarded as carrying information
819   relating to location, reachability, or other addressing/routing
820   concern.
```

Consider making this a MUST?

### define limited expressiveness

```
858   The limited expressiveness of URIs of the ipn scheme effectively
859   eliminates the possibility of threat due to errors in back-end
860   transcoding.
```

Do you mean that they lack path or query components?

Is there any backend transcoding that is expected here?


### convergence layer examples

```
879   interception of these URIs is minimal.  Examination of ipn URIs could
880   be used to support traffic analysis; where traffic analysis is a
881   plausible danger, bundles should be conveyed by secure convergence-
882   layer protocols that do not expose endpoint IDs.
```

Are there any protocols that could be recommended or provided as an example here?


### Is this sentence needed?

```
1064   Services that are specific to a particular deployment or co-operation
1065   may require a registry to reduce administrative burden, but do not
1066   require an entry in this registry.
```

I don't understand why this is here, consider removing it.

## Nits

### DTNs expand on first use

```
157   environments behind a shared administrative domain.  The growth in
158   the number and scale of deployments of BPv7 DTNs has been accompanied
159   by a growth in the usage of the ipn URI scheme which has highlighted
160   areas to improve the structure, moderation, and management of this
161   scheme.
```

### follow -> following

```
465   To keep the text representation concise, the follow rules apply:
```

### is -> in

```
894   IANA is requested to update the reference to the 'ipn' scheme is the
```

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about the first and second actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, a new registry is to be created called the 'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers registry. The new registry will be located in the Bundle Protocol registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/

The registration policy for the new registry (as defined by RFC 8126) is:

0 - 65535: Expert Review, Single Allocator Identifiers only
65536 - 1073741823: Expert Review
1073741824 - 2147483647: Experimental Use
2147483648 - 4294967295: Reserved for Future Expansion
4294967296 and above: Reserved

The "Single Allocator Identifiers only" language in the Registration Policy for this registry indicates that, within the indicated range, the allocation of a sequence of consecutive Allocator identifiers to a single organization is prohibited.

IANA Question --> Should this be added as a note to the new registry?

The reference for the new registry will be [ RFC-to-be ].

There are two initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Name: Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2)
Range (dec): 0
Range (hex): 0x0
Range Length (Bits): 0
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Point of Contact: IANA

Name: Example Range
Range (dec): 974848 - 978943
Range (hex): 0xEE000 - 0xEEFFF
Range Length (Bits): 12 bits
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Point of Contact: IANA

Second, the existing registry called the CBHE Node Numbers registry in the Bundle Protocol registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/

is to be renamed as the:

'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers registry.

IANA Question --> Should the reference for this registry be changed to [ RFC-to-be ] or should [ RFC-to-be ] be added to the existing reference for the registry?

Third, in the newly renamed 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers registry in the Bundle Protocol registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/

the registration policy (as per RFC 8126) is changed to:

0: Reserved for the Null ipn URI ([ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1])
1 - 16383: Private Use
16384 - 4294967294: Expert Review
4294967295: Reserved for LocalNode ipn URIs ([ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4.2])
4294967295 and above: invalid

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-known Service Numbers for BPv7 registry. The new registry will be located in the Bundle Protocol registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/

The registration policy for the new registry (as defined by RFC 8126) is:

0: Reserved for the Administrative Endpoint ([ RFC-to-be; Section 5.7])
1 - 127 Private Use
128 - 255: Standards Action
256 - 32767: Private Use
32768 - 65535: Specification Required
65536 - 4294967295: Private Use
4294967296 and above: Reserved for future expansion

There are two initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Value: 0
Description: The Administrative Endpoint ([ RFC-to-be; Section 5.7])
Reference: [RFC9171], [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 0xEEE0 - 0xEEEF
Description: Example Range
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update@ietf.org, dtn-chairs@ietf.org, dtn@ietf.org, sburleig.sb@gmail.com, zahed.sarker.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Update to the ipn URI scheme) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking
WG (dtn) to consider the following document: - 'Update to the ipn URI scheme'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-12. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document updates both the specification of the ipn URI scheme
  previously defined in RFC 7116 and the rules for encoding of these
  URIs when used as an Endpoint Identifier (EID) in Bundle Protocol
  Version 7 (BPv7) as defined in RFC 9171.  These updates update and
  clarify the structure and behavior of the ipn URI scheme, define
  encodings of ipn scheme URIs, and establish the registries necessary
  to manage this scheme.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Shepherd Writeup for Update to the ipn URI scheme
Scott Burleigh
25 December 2023

# Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>> There was extensive discussion on the mailing list among over two dozen working group members.  The document reflects broad agreement among the members.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
>> Discussion of some detailed points of the specification was spirited but agreement was reached.
The main point of contention initially was whether to define an entirely new ipn URI specification with a 128-bit namespace or, alternatively, to retain the existing 64-bit namespace (to preserve compatibility with existing implementations and deployments) and instead simply define CBOR and textual encodings that would provide the required capabilities.  In the end the latter position was adopted.
There was also especially lively dispute over governance considerations, i.e., how exactly would node numbers be assigned by allocators?  It was decided this topic properly belonged in a separate draft, as future work.  It was removed, enabling consensus on the technical issues to be achieved and the document to progress.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)
>> I am not aware of any such extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
>> There are as yet no known implementations of the ipn URI scheme update described in this document.  Three implementers are known to be planning to make these modifications.

# Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
>> The ipn URI scheme is not known at this time to be utilized by any technologies other than Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN); IETF working groups other than the DTN WG have not reviewed the document.
The DTN Working Group of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) reviewed the document in email and at WG meetings between October 2022 and August 2023, offered comments, and has determined that these modifications preserve interoperability with the CCSDS profile of Bundle Protocol version 7 (BPv7).

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
>> No formal expert reviews were found to be applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?
>> The document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
>> Appendix A of the document defines the syntax of the revised ipn URI scheme in ABNF representation.  The IETF ABNF validator tool at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf was used to validate that syntax.
Appendix C details the CDDL definitions that are applicable to this document.  The definitions were reviewed by Carsten Bormann.
Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
>> Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
>> Only the common issues identified for the Transport area are relevant, specifically only the IANA Considerations issue.  This issue is addressed: no codepoints are identified in this document other than ‘0’, which is administratively defined.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
>> Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested.  The specification is intended to be Standards Track eventually but has not yet been implemented.  The Datatracker state attributes reflect the intent correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
>> All authors have been reminded of the disclosure obligations described in BCP 79.  To the best of my knowledge, all required disclosures have been filed and there was no relevant discussion.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
>> The document has two authors, both of whom have declared that they are willing to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
>> Nits identified by the idnits tool have been addressed.
No distinct Summary of Changes section is included, but the changes from RFC 7116 are summarized in the Introduction.
The sole erratum against RFC 7116 was documented by one of the authors of the present document and has been addressed in this new specification.  However, the I-D does not state explicitly that it addresses that erratum.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
>> All references are correctly documented.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
>> All normative references are RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
>> There are no normative downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
>> There are no normative references to documents whose status is unclear.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
>> Publication of this document will update RFCs 9171 and 7116, as noted in the document.  The Datatracker metadata does not yet reflect this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
>> The IANA Considerations section is consistent with the document’s content.  No IANA assignments are requested.  Referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. New IANA registries for which creation is requested are identified by reasonable names, and their allocation procedures and initial contents are specified.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
>> The newly requested IANA "'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers" registry requires Designated Expert review for future allocations. Clear instructions to the Designated Expert are provided.

Document Shepherd Writeup for Update to the ipn URI scheme
Scott Burleigh
25 December 2023

# Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>> There was extensive discussion on the mailing list among over two dozen working group members.  The document reflects broad agreement among the members.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
>> Discussion of some detailed points of the specification was spirited but agreement was reached.
The main point of contention initially was whether to define an entirely new ipn URI specification with a 128-bit namespace or, alternatively, to retain the existing 64-bit namespace (to preserve compatibility with existing implementations and deployments) and instead simply define CBOR and textual encodings that would provide the required capabilities.  In the end the latter position was adopted.
There was also especially lively dispute over governance considerations, i.e., how exactly would node numbers be assigned by allocators?  It was decided this topic properly belonged in a separate draft, as future work.  It was removed, enabling consensus on the technical issues to be achieved and the document to progress.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)
>> I am not aware of any such extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
>> There are as yet no known implementations of the ipn URI scheme update described in this document.  Three implementers are known to be planning to make these modifications.

# Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
>> The ipn URI scheme is not known at this time to be utilized by any technologies other than Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN); IETF working groups other than the DTN WG have not reviewed the document.
The DTN Working Group of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) reviewed the document in email and at WG meetings between October 2022 and August 2023, offered comments, and has determined that these modifications preserve interoperability with the CCSDS profile of Bundle Protocol version 7 (BPv7).

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
>> No formal expert reviews were found to be applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?
>> The document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
>> Appendix A of the document defines the syntax of the revised ipn URI scheme in ABNF representation.  The IETF ABNF validator tool at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf was used to validate that syntax.
Appendix C details the CDDL definitions that are applicable to this document.  The definitions were reviewed by Carsten Bormann.
Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
>> Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
>> Only the common issues identified for the Transport area are relevant, specifically only the IANA Considerations issue.  This issue is addressed: no codepoints are identified in this document other than ‘0’, which is administratively defined.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
>> Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested.  The specification is intended to be Standards Track eventually but has not yet been implemented.  The Datatracker state attributes reflect the intent correctly.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
>> All authors have been reminded of the disclosure obligations described in BCP 79.  To the best of my knowledge, all required disclosures have been filed and there was no relevant discussion.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
>> The document has two authors, both of whom have declared that they are willing to be listed as such.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
>> Nits identified by the idnits tool have been addressed.
No distinct Summary of Changes section is included, but the changes from RFC 7116 are summarized in the Introduction.
The sole erratum against RFC 7116 was documented by one of the authors of the present document and has been addressed in this new specification.  However, the I-D does not state explicitly that it addresses that erratum.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
>> All references are correctly documented.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
>> All normative references are RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
>> There are no normative downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
>> There are no normative references to documents whose status is unclear.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
>> Publication of this document will update RFCs 9171 and 7116, as noted in the document.  The Datatracker metadata does not yet reflect this.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
>> The IANA Considerations section is consistent with the document’s content.  No IANA assignments are requested.  Referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. New IANA registries for which creation is requested are identified by reasonable names, and their allocation procedures and initial contents are specified.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
>> The newly requested IANA "'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers" registry requires Designated Expert review for future allocations. Clear instructions to the Designated Expert are provided.

Document Shepherd Writeup for Update to the ipn URI scheme
Scott Burleigh
25 December 2023
Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
There was extensive discussion on the mailing list among over two dozen working group members.  The document reflects broad agreement among the members.
  2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Discussion of some detailed points of the specification was spirited but agreement was reached.
The main point of contention initially was whether to define an entirely new ipn URI specification with a 128-bit namespace or, alternatively, to retain the existing 64-bit namespace (to preserve compatibility with existing implementations and deployments) and instead simply define CBOR and textual encodings that would provide the required capabilities.  In the end the latter position was adopted.
There was also especially lively dispute over governance considerations, i.e., how exactly would node numbers be assigned by allocators?  It was decided this topic properly belonged in a separate draft, as future work.  It was removed, enabling consensus on the technical issues to be achieved and the document to progress.
      3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)
I am not aware of any such extreme discontent.
        4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
There are as yet no known implementations of the ipn URI scheme update described in this document.  Three implementers are known to be planning to make these modifications.
Additional Reviews
            5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
The ipn URI scheme is not known at this time to be utilized by any technologies other than Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN); IETF working groups other than the DTN WG have not reviewed the document.
The DTN Working Group of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) reviewed the document in email and at WG meetings between October 2022 and August 2023, offered comments, and has determined that these modifications preserve interoperability with the CCSDS profile of Bundle Protocol version 7 (BPv7).
              6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal expert reviews were found to be applicable.
                  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?
The document does not contain a YANG module.
                    8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Appendix A of the document defines the syntax of the revised ipn URI scheme in ABNF representation.  The IETF ABNF validator tool at https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf was used to validate that syntax.
Appendix C details the CDDL definitions that are applicable to this document.  The definitions were reviewed by Carsten Bormann.
Document Shepherd Checks
                        9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes.
                          10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
Only the common issues identified for the Transport area are relevant, specifically only the IANA Considerations issue.  This issue is addressed: no codepoints are identified in this document other than ‘0’, which is administratively defined.
                              11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested.  The specification is intended to be Standards Track eventually but has not yet been implemented.  The Datatracker state attributes reflect the intent correctly.
                                12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
All authors have been reminded of the disclosure obligations described in BCP 79.  To the best of my knowledge, all required disclosures have been filed and there was no relevant discussion.
                                    13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
The document has two authors, both of whom have declared that they are willing to be listed as such.
                                      14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Nits identified by the idnits tool have been addressed.
No distinct Summary of Changes section is included, but the changes from RFC 7116 are summarized in the Introduction.
The sole erratum against RFC 7116 was documented by one of the authors of the present document and has been addressed in this new specification.  However, the I-D does not state explicitly that it addresses that erratum.
                                          15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
All references are correctly documented.
                                            16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are RFCs.
                                                17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
There are no normative downward references.
                                                  18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
There are no normative references to documents whose status is unclear.
                                                      19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
Publication of this document will update RFCs 9171 and 7116, as noted in the document.  The Datatracker metadata does not yet reflect this.
                                                        20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
The IANA Considerations section is consistent with the document’s content.  No IANA assignments are requested.  Referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. New IANA registries for which creation is requested are identified by reasonable names, and their allocation procedures and initial contents are specified.
                                                            21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The newly requested IANA "'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers" registry requires Designated Expert review for future allocations. Clear instructions to the Designated Expert are provided.