draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-00.txt   draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-01.txt 
Network Working Group J. Gould Network Working Group J. Gould
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Casanova Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Casanova
Expires: August 17, 2020 SWITCH Expires: October 25, 2020 SWITCH
February 14, 2020 April 23, 2020
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-00 draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-01
Abstract Abstract
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730, The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs. during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
in the response when the client does not support the required service in the response when the client does not support the required service
namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 August 17, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4 3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4
3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 16 7.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 17
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730], The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs. during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
in the response when the client does not support the required service in the response when the client does not support the required service
namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
[RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the [RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the
server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client
needs to be capable of processing all poll messages. An unhandled needs to be capable of processing all poll messages. An unhandled
namespace is an issue also for general EPP responses when the server namespace is an issue also for general EPP responses when the server
has information that it cannot return to the client due to the has information that it cannot return to the client due to the
client's supported services. The server should be able to return client's supported services. The server should be able to return
skipping to change at page 10, line 19 skipping to change at page 10, line 19
S: </domain:authInfo> S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData> S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData> S: </resData>
S: <trID> S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID> S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID> S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID> S: </trID>
S: </response> S: </response>
S:</epp> S:</epp>
4. Usage with General EPP Responses 4. Signaling Client and Server Support
This document does not define new protocol but a Best Current
Practice (BCP) using the existing EPP protocol, where the client and
the server can signal support for the BCP using a namespace URI in
the login and greeting extension services. The namespace URI
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-0.1" is used to
signal support for the BCP. The client includes the namespace URI in
an <svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730] <login> Command.
The server includes the namespace URI in an <svcExtension> <extURI>
element of the [RFC5730] Greeting.
A client that receives the namespace URI in the server's Greeting
extension services, can expect the following supported behavior by
the server:
1. Support unhandled namespace object-level extensions and command-
response extensions in EPP poll messages, per Section 6.
2. Support the option of unhandled namespace command-response
extensions in general EPP responses, per Section 5.
A server that receives the namespace URI in the client's <login>
Command extension services, can expect the following supported
behavior by the client:
1. Support monitoring the EPP poll messages and general EPP
responses for unhandled namespaces.
5. Usage with General EPP Responses
The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for
a general EPP response to an EPP command. A general EPP response a general EPP response to an EPP command. A general EPP response
includes any non-poll message EPP response. The use of the unhandled includes any non-poll message EPP response. The use of the unhandled
namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in
Section 5. The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace Section 6. The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace
information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the
unhandled namespace approach. unhandled namespace approach.
The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD
only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in
Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP
command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI
in the login services. An object-level EPP response extension is in the login services. An object-level EPP response extension is
returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP
command extension. The server MAY return an unhandled object-level command extension. The server MAY return an unhandled object-level
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 32
S: </domain:authInfo> S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData> S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData> S: </resData>
S: <trID> S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID> S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID> S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID> S: </trID>
S: </response> S: </response>
S:</epp> S:</epp>
5. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses 6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses
The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used
if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll> if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll>
message response. The server inserts poll messages into the client's message response. The server inserts poll messages into the client's
poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login
services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command- services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command-
response extensions included in a client's poll queue. In [RFC5730], response extensions included in a client's poll queue. In [RFC5730],
the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge
poll messages that have been inserted by the server. The <poll> poll messages that have been inserted by the server. The <poll>
message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element
skipping to change at page 15, line 14 skipping to change at page 15, line 43
S: <qDate>2018-08-24T19:23:12.822Z</qDate> S: <qDate>2018-08-24T19:23:12.822Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg> S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
S: </msgQ> S: </msgQ>
S: <trID> S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID> S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID> S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID> S: </trID>
S: </response> S: </response>
S:</epp> S:</epp>
6. Implementation Status 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. XML Namespace
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI
assignment is requested of IANA:
Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-0.1
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
7.2. EPP Extension Registry
The EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) described in this document should
be registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in
[RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows:
Name of Extension: "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled
Namespaces"
Document status: Best Current Practice
Reference: (insert reference to RFC version of this document)
Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
8. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
skipping to change at page 15, line 39 skipping to change at page 17, line 8
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist. other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit". information as they see fit".
6.1. Verisign EPP SDK 8.1. Verisign EPP SDK
Organization: Verisign Inc. Organization: Verisign Inc.
Name: Verisign EPP SDK Name: Verisign EPP SDK
Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the
unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages. unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages.
Level of maturity: Development Level of maturity: Development
Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented. Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License
Contact: jgould@verisign.com Contact: jgould@verisign.com
URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain- URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-
registry-products/epp-sdks registry-products/epp-sdks
6.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process 8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process
Organization: SWITCH Organization: SWITCH
Name: Registry of .CH and .LI Name: Registry of .CH and .LI
Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about
DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records. These poll DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records. These poll
messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll- messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-
1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are 1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are
rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft. rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft.
skipping to change at page 16, line 34 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
Level of maturity: Operational Level of maturity: Operational
Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented. Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
Licensing: Proprietary Licensing: Proprietary
Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch
URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds
7. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The document do not provide any security services beyond those The document do not provide any security services beyond those
described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP. The described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP. The
security considerations described in these other specifications apply security considerations described in these other specifications apply
to this specification as well. to this specification as well.
8. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
TBD TBD
9. Normative References 11. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll] [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll]
Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", draft-ietf- Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", draft-ietf-
regext-change-poll-12 (work in progress), January 2019. regext-change-poll-12 (work in progress), January 2019.
[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 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible [RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735, Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.
[RFC3915] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for [RFC3915] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for
the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915, the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>.
skipping to change at page 17, line 40 skipping to change at page 19, line 16
Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.
[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910, Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.
[RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451,
February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Appendix A. Change History Appendix A. Change History
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 A.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" 1. Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
skipping to change at page 18, line 18 skipping to change at page 19, line 45
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 A.2. Change from 01 to 02
1. Ping update 1. Ping update
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00
1. Changed to regext working group draft by changing draft-gould- 1. Changed to regext working group draft by changing draft-gould-
casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces to draft-ietf-regext- casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces to draft-ietf-regext-
unhandled-namespaces. unhandled-namespaces.
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01
1. Added the "Signaling Client and Server Support" section to
describe the mechanism to signal support for the BCP by the
client and the server.
2. Added the IANA Considerations section with the registration of
the unhandled namespaces XML namespace and the registration of
the EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) in the EPP Extension
Registry.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
James Gould James Gould
VeriSign, Inc. VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way 12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190 Reston, VA 20190
US US
Email: jgould@verisign.com Email: jgould@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 115 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/