draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10.txt   draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-11.txt 
Network Working Group D. Belyavskiy Network Working Group D. Belyavskiy
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track J. Gould Intended status: Standards Track J. Gould
Expires: 24 November 2022 VeriSign, Inc. Expires: 7 December 2022 VeriSign, Inc.
23 May 2022 5 June 2022
Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP) Protocol (EPP)
draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10 draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-11
Abstract Abstract
This document describes an EPP extension that permits usage of This document describes an EPP extension that permits usage of
Internationalized Email Addresses in the EPP protocol and specifies Internationalized Email Addresses in the EPP protocol and specifies
the terms when it can be used by EPP clients and servers. The the terms when it can be used by EPP clients and servers. The
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), being developed before Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), being developed before the
appearing the standards for Internationalized Email Addresses (EAI), standards for Internationalized Email Addresses (EAI), does not
does not support such email addresses. support such email addresses.
TO BE REMOVED on turning to RFC: The document is edited in the TO BE REMOVED on turning to RFC: The document is edited in the
dedicated github repo (https://github.com/beldmit/eppeai). Please dedicated github repo (https://github.com/beldmit/eppeai). Please
send your submissions via GitHub. send your submissions via GitHub.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 November 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 December 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
A.5. Change from 04 to the regext 01 version . . . . . . . . . 11 A.5. Change from 04 to the regext 01 version . . . . . . . . . 11
A.6. Change from the regext 01 to regext 02 version . . . . . 12 A.6. Change from the regext 01 to regext 02 version . . . . . 12
A.7. Change from the regext 02 to regext 03 version . . . . . 12 A.7. Change from the regext 02 to regext 03 version . . . . . 12
A.8. Change from the regext 03 to regext 04 version . . . . . 12 A.8. Change from the regext 03 to regext 04 version . . . . . 12
A.9. Change from the regext 04 to regext 05 version . . . . . 12 A.9. Change from the regext 04 to regext 05 version . . . . . 12
A.10. Change from the regext 05 to regext 06 version . . . . . 12 A.10. Change from the regext 05 to regext 06 version . . . . . 12
A.11. Change from the regext 06 to regext 07 version . . . . . 12 A.11. Change from the regext 06 to regext 07 version . . . . . 12
A.12. Change from the regext 07 to regext 08 version . . . . . 12 A.12. Change from the regext 07 to regext 08 version . . . . . 12
A.13. Change from the regext 08 to regext 09 version . . . . . 12 A.13. Change from the regext 08 to regext 09 version . . . . . 12
A.14. Change from the regext 09 to regext 10 version . . . . . 13 A.14. Change from the regext 09 to regext 10 version . . . . . 13
A.15. Change from the regext 10 to regext 11 version . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6530] introduced the framework for Internationalized Email [RFC6530] introduced the framework for Internationalized Email
Addresses. To make such addresses more widely accepted, the changes Addresses. To make such addresses more widely accepted, the changes
to various protocols need to be introduced. to various protocols need to be introduced.
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
extension that permits usage of Internationalized Email Addresses in extension that permits usage of Internationalized Email Addresses in
skipping to change at page 4, line 35 skipping to change at page 4, line 35
schema type "eppcom:minTokenType" and the [RFC5322] format schema type "eppcom:minTokenType" and the [RFC5322] format
specification, where this extension applies to all EPP extensions specification, where this extension applies to all EPP extensions
with the same or similar definitions. with the same or similar definitions.
The email address format is formally defined in Section 3.4.1 of The email address format is formally defined in Section 3.4.1 of
[RFC5322], which only consists of printable US-ASCII characters for [RFC5322], which only consists of printable US-ASCII characters for
both the local-part and the domain ABNF rules. [RFC6531] extends the both the local-part and the domain ABNF rules. [RFC6531] extends the
Mailbox, Local-part and Domain ABNF rules in [RFC5321] to support Mailbox, Local-part and Domain ABNF rules in [RFC5321] to support
"UTF8-non-ascii", defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC6532], for the local- "UTF8-non-ascii", defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC6532], for the local-
part and U-label, defined in Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890], for the part and U-label, defined in Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890], for the
domain. By applying the syntax rules of [RFC5322], the EPP domain. By applying the syntax rules of [RFC6531], the EPP
extensions will change from supporting only ASCII characters to extensions will change from supporting only ASCII characters to
supporting Internationalized characters both in the email address supporting Internationalized characters both in the email address
local-part and domain-part. local-part and domain-part.
4. Functional Extension 4. Functional Extension
[RFC5730] defines three types of extensions at the protocol, object, [RFC5730] defines three types of extensions at the protocol, object,
and command-response level, which impact the structure of the EPP and command-response level, which impact the structure of the EPP
messages. A Functional Extension applies a functional capability to messages. A Functional Extension applies a functional capability to
an existing set of EPP extensions and properties. The scope of the an existing set of EPP extensions and properties. The scope of the
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 41
The lack of EAI support can cause data and functional issues, so an The lack of EAI support can cause data and functional issues, so an
EAI supporting client or server needs to handle cases where the EAI supporting client or server needs to handle cases where the
opposite party doesn't support EAI. Below are the server and client opposite party doesn't support EAI. Below are the server and client
obligations when the EAI extension is not negotiated due to the lack obligations when the EAI extension is not negotiated due to the lack
of support by the peer. of support by the peer.
The EAI supporting server MUST satisfy the following obligations when The EAI supporting server MUST satisfy the following obligations when
the client does not support the EAI extension: the client does not support the EAI extension:
* When the email property is required in the EPP command, the server * When the email property is required in the EPP command, the server
SHOULD validate the email property sent by the client using the MUST validate the email property sent by the client using the
ASCII email validation rules. ASCII email validation rules.
* When the email property is optional in the EPP command, if the * When the email property is optional in the EPP command, if the
client supplies the email property the server SHOULD validate the client supplies the email property the server MUST validate the
email property using the ASCII email validation rules. email property using the ASCII email validation rules.
* When the email property is required in the EPP response, the * When the email property is required in the EPP response, the
server MUST validate whether the email property is an EAI address server MUST validate whether the email property is an EAI address
and if so return the error code 2308 "Data management policy and if so return the error code 2308 "Data management policy
violation". violation".
* When the email property is optional in the EPP response and is * When the email property is optional in the EPP response and is
provided, the server MUST validate whether the email property is provided, the server MUST validate whether the email property is
an EAI address and if so return the error code 2308 "Data an EAI address and if so return the error code 2308 "Data
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 skipping to change at page 9, line 31
domain name with similar U-label (homograph attack) and get a control domain name with similar U-label (homograph attack) and get a control
over the domain name associated with the contact using social over the domain name associated with the contact using social
engineering techniques. To reduce the risk of the use of invalid engineering techniques. To reduce the risk of the use of invalid
domain names in email addresses, registries SHOULD validate the domain names in email addresses, registries SHOULD validate the
domain name syntax in the provided email addresses and validate all domain name syntax in the provided email addresses and validate all
code points in the domain name according to IDNA2008 [RFC5892]. code points in the domain name according to IDNA2008 [RFC5892].
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Alexander Mayrhofer, Gustavo Lozano, The authors would like to thank Alexander Mayrhofer, Gustavo Lozano,
Jody Kolker, John Levine, Klaus Malorny, Marco Schrieck, Mario Jody Kolker, John C Klensin, John Levine, Klaus Malorny, Marco
Loffredo, Murray S. Kucherawy, Patrick Mevzek, Scott Hollenbeck, Schrieck, Mario Loffredo, Murray S. Kucherawy, Patrick Mevzek, Pete
Taras Heichenko, and Thomas Corte for their careful review and Resnick, Scott Hollenbeck, Taras Heichenko, and Thomas Corte for
valuable comments. their careful review and valuable comments.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.27487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.27487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 9 skipping to change at page 13, line 9
5. Sections are reordered to align with the other regext documents 5. Sections are reordered to align with the other regext documents
A.13. Change from the regext 08 to regext 09 version A.13. Change from the regext 08 to regext 09 version
1. Nitpicking according to Murray S. Kucherawy review 1. Nitpicking according to Murray S. Kucherawy review
A.14. Change from the regext 09 to regext 10 version A.14. Change from the regext 09 to regext 10 version
1. Some nitpicking in the security considerations. 1. Some nitpicking in the security considerations.
A.15. Change from the regext 10 to regext 11 version
1. Nitpicking according mostly GenArt review.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dmitry Belyavskiy Dmitry Belyavskiy
8 marta st. 8 marta st.
Moscow Moscow
127083 127083
Russian Federation Russian Federation
Phone: +7 916 262 5593 Phone: +7 916 262 5593
Email: beldmit@gmail.com Email: beldmit@gmail.com
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/