draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-01.txt   draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-02.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: October 25, 2020 SWITCH Expires: February 1, 2021 SWITCH
April 23, 2020 July 31, 2020
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-01 draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-02
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 October 25, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 1, 2021.
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 44 skipping to change at page 2, line 44
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 17 8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.5. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 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 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
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>
The EPP response is converted from an object response to a general The EPP response is converted from an object response to a general
EPP response by the server when the client does not support the EPP response by the server when the client does not support the
object-level extension namespace URI. Below is example of converting object-level extension namespace URI. Below is example of converting
the <transfer> query response example in [RFC5730] to an unhandled the <transfer> query response example in [RFC5731] to an unhandled
namespace response. namespace response.
[RFC5730] example <transfer> query response converted into an [RFC5731] example <transfer> query response converted into an
unhandled namespace response. unhandled namespace response.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"> S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response> S: <response>
S: <result code="1000"> S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg> S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue> S: <extValue>
S: <value> S: <value>
S: <domain:trnData S: <domain:trnData
skipping to change at page 10, line 25 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
S: </trID> S: </trID>
S: </response> S: </response>
S:</epp> S:</epp>
4. Signaling Client and Server Support 4. Signaling Client and Server Support
This document does not define new protocol but a Best Current This document does not define new protocol but a Best Current
Practice (BCP) using the existing EPP protocol, where the client and 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 server can signal support for the BCP using a namespace URI in
the login and greeting extension services. The namespace URI the login and greeting extension services. The namespace URI
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-0.1" is used to "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0" is used to
signal support for the BCP. The client includes the namespace URI in signal support for the BCP. The client includes the namespace URI in
an <svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730] <login> Command. an <svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730] <login> Command.
The server includes the namespace URI in an <svcExtension> <extURI> The server includes the namespace URI in an <svcExtension> <extURI>
element of the [RFC5730] Greeting. element of the [RFC5730] Greeting.
A client that receives the namespace URI in the server's Greeting A client that receives the namespace URI in the server's Greeting
extension services, can expect the following supported behavior by extension services, can expect the following supported behavior by
the server: the server:
1. Support unhandled namespace object-level extensions and command- 1. Support unhandled namespace object-level extensions and command-
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. XML Namespace 7.1. XML Namespace
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI
assignment is requested of IANA: assignment is requested of IANA:
Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace: Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-0.1 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
7.2. EPP Extension Registry 7.2. EPP Extension Registry
The EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) described in this document should The EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) described in this document should
be registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in be registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in
[RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows: [RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows:
Name of Extension: "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Name of Extension: "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled
skipping to change at page 18, line 14 skipping to change at page 18, line 14
9. 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.
10. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
TBD The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions:
o Scott Hollenbeck
o Patrick Mevzek
o Marcel Parodi
11. 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,
skipping to change at page 20, line 7 skipping to change at page 20, line 15
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01
1. Added the "Signaling Client and Server Support" section to 1. Added the "Signaling Client and Server Support" section to
describe the mechanism to signal support for the BCP by the describe the mechanism to signal support for the BCP by the
client and the server. client and the server.
2. Added the IANA Considerations section with the registration of 2. Added the IANA Considerations section with the registration of
the unhandled namespaces XML namespace and the registration of the unhandled namespaces XML namespace and the registration of
the EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) in the EPP Extension the EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) in the EPP Extension
Registry. Registry.
A.5. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02
1. Filled in the acknowledgements section.
2. Changed the reference from RFC 5730 to RFC 5731 for the transfer
example in section 3.1 "Unhandled Object-Level" Extension.
3. Updated the XML namespace to
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0, which
removed bcp from the namespace and bumped the version from 0.1
and 1.0. Inclusion of bcp in the XML namespace was discussed at
the REGEXT interim meeting.
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. 11 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 27 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/