💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc7451.gmi captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:39:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: domain, host, contact
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hollenbeck
Request for Comments: 7451 Verisign Labs
Category: Informational February 2015
ISSN: 2070-1721
Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
Abstract
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) includes features to add
functionality by extending the protocol. It does not, however,
describe how those extensions are managed. This document describes a
procedure for the registration and management of extensions to EPP,
and it specifies a format for an IANA registry to record those
extensions.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Extension Specification and Registration Procedure . . . . . 3
2.1. Extension Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Required Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3. Registration Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.4. Updating Registry Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
Domain name registries implement a variety of operational and
business models. The differences in these models make it impossible
to develop a "one size fits all" provisioning protocol; the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol [RFC5730] was designed to focus on a
minimal set of common functionality with built-in extension
capabilities that allow new features to be specified on an "as
needed" basis. Guidelines for extending EPP are documented in RFC
3735 [RFC3735].
RFCs 3735 and 5730 do not describe how extension development can be
managed and coordinated. This has led to a situation in which server
operators can develop different extensions to address similar needs,
such as the provisioning of Value Added Tax (VAT) information.
Clients then need to support multiple extensions that serve similar
purposes, and interoperability suffers as a result.
An IANA registry can be used to help manage and coordinate the
development of protocol extensions. This document describes an IANA
registry that will be used to coordinate the development of EPP
extensions.
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
2. Extension Specification and Registration Procedure
This section describes the format of an IANA registry and the
procedures used to populate and manage registry entries.
2.1. Extension Specification
This registry uses the "Specification Required" policy described in
RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. An English language version of the extension
specification will be referenced from the registry, though non-
English versions of the specification may also be provided. Note
that Section 2.1 of RFC 3735 [RFC3735] provides specific guidelines
for documenting EPP extensions.
Note that the "Specification Required" policy implies review by a
"designated expert". Section 3 of RFC 5226 [RFC5226] describes the
role of designated experts and the function they perform.
2.1.1. Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria
A high-level description of the role of the designated expert is
described in Section 3.2 of RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Specific guidelines
for the appointment of designated experts and the evaluation of EPP
extensions are provided here.
The IESG should appoint a small pool of individuals (perhaps 3 - 5)
to serve as designated experts, as described in Section 3.2 of RFC
5226 [RFC5226]. The pool should have a single administrative chair
who is appointed by the IESG. The designated experts should use the
existing eppext mailing list (eppext@ietf.org) for public discussion
of registration requests. This implies that the mailing list should
remain open after the work of the EPPEXT working group has concluded.
Extensions should be evaluated for architectural soundness using the
guidelines described in RFC 3735 [RFC3735], including the Security
Considerations section of that document. Expert evaluation should
explicitly include consideration of the privacy consequences of
proposed extensions, and, at a minimum, ensure that any privacy
considerations are fully documented in the relevant specification(s).
The results of the evaluation should be shared via email with the
registrant and the eppext mailing list. Issues discovered during the
evaluation can be corrected by the registrant, and those corrections
can be submitted to the designated experts until the designated
experts explicitly decide to accept or reject the registration
request. The designated experts must make an explicit decision and
that decision must be shared via email with the registrant and the
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
eppext mailing list. If the specification for an extension is an
IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by the
designated expert.
Designated experts should be permissive in their evaluation of
requests to register extensions that have been implemented and
deployed by at least one registry/registrar pair. This implies that
it may indeed be possible to register multiple extensions that
provide the same functionality. Requests to register extensions that
have not been deployed should be evaluated with a goal of reducing
functional duplication. A potential registrant who submits a request
to register a new, un-deployed extension that includes similar
functionality to an existing, registered extension should be made
aware of the existing extension. The registrant should be asked to
reconsider their request given the existence of a similar extension.
Should they decline to do so, perceived similarity should not be a
sufficient reason for rejection as long as all other requirements are
met.
2.2. Registration Procedure
The registry contains information describing each registered
extension. Registry entries are created and managed by sending forms
to IANA that describe the extension and the operation to be performed
on the registry entry.
2.2.1. Required Information
Name of Extension: A case-insensitive, ASCII text string that
contains the name of the extension specification. Non-ASCII
representations of the extension name can be included in the "Notes"
described below.
Document Status: The document status ("Informational", "Standards
Track", etc.) of the specification document. For documents that are
not RFCs, this will always be "Informational".
Reference: A publicly available reference to the specification of
this extension. This could be an RFC number or some other pointer to
the document defining the extension.
Registrant Name and Email Address: The name and email address of the
person that is responsible for managing the registry entry. If the
registration is of an IETF Standards Track document, this can simply
be listed as "IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>".
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
TLDs: A text string containing the top-level domain name (or domain
names), including the preceding ".", for which the extension has been
specified (e.g., ".org"). If there are multiple TLDs, they are given
as a list of domain names separated by commas, (e.g. ".com", ".net").
Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) TLDs should be specified in
A-label [RFC5890] format. If the extension is not associated with a
specific top-level domain, the case-insensitive text string "Any" can
be used to indicate that.
IPR Disclosure: A pointer to any Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
disclosure document(s) related to this extension, or "None" may be
used if there are no such disclosures. This can be an IPR disclosure
filed with the IETF in accordance with RFC 3979 [RFC3979] as updated
by RFC 4879 [RFC4879] if the extension is part of an IETF
Contribution, or it can be other IPR disclosure documents identifying
the claimed intellectual property rights and terms of use for
extensions that are not part of an IETF Contribution.
Status: Either "Active" or "Inactive". The "Active" status is used
for extensions that are currently implemented and in use. The
"Inactive" status is used for extensions that are not implemented or
are otherwise not being used.
Notes: Either "None" or other text that describes optional notes to
be included with the registered extension. If the Status value is
"Inactive", text should be included to describe how and when this
state was reached.
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
2.2.2. Registration Form
The required information must be formatted consistently using the
following registration form. Form field names and values may appear
on the same line.
-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
<text string> (quotes are optional)
Document Status: <document status>
Reference: <RFC number, URL, etc.>
Registrant Name and Email Address:
<registrant name>, <email address>
TLDs: "Any"|<one or more TLD text strings separated by commas>
IPR Disclosure: "None"|<URL>
Status: "Active"|"Inactive"
Notes: "None"|<optional text>
-----END FORM-----
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
Example form with RFC specification:
-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
"An Extension RFC for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
Document Status:
Standards Track
Reference:
RFC XXXX
Registrant Name and Email Address:
IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
-----END FORM-----
Example form with non-RFC specification:
-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
"An Example Extension for the .example Top-Level Domain"
Document Status:
Informational
Reference:
http://www.example.com/html/example-epp-ext.txt
Registrant Name and Email Address:
John Doe, jdoe@example.com
TLDs: .example
IPR Disclosure:
http://www.example.com/ipr/example-epp-ext-ipr.html
Status: Active
Notes: None
-----END FORM-----
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
2.2.3. Registration Processing
Registrants should send each registration form to IANA with a single
record for incorporation into the registry. Send the form via email
to <iana@iana.org> or complete the online form found on the IANA web
site. The subject line should indicate whether the enclosed form
represents an insertion of a new record (indicated by the word
"INSERT" in the subject line) or a replacement of an existing record
(indicated by the word "MODIFY" in the subject line). At no time can
a record be deleted from the registry. On receipt of the
registration request, IANA will initiate review by the designated
expert(s), who will evaluate the request using the criteria in
Section 2.1.1 in consultation with the eppext mailing list.
2.2.4. Updating Registry Entries
When submitting changes to existing registry entries, include text in
the "Notes" field of the registration form describing the change.
Under normal circumstances, registry entries are only to be updated
by the registrant. If the registrant becomes unavailable or
otherwise unresponsive, the designated expert can submit a
registration form to IANA to update the registrant information.
Entries can change state from "Active" to "Inactive" and back again
as long as state-change requests conform to the processing
requirements identified in this document. In addition to entries
that become "Inactive" due to a lack of implementation, entries for
which a specification becomes consistently unavailable over time
should be marked "Inactive" by the designated expert until the
specification again becomes reliably available.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP)" registry to manage EPP extensions. This registry has
its own heading on IANA's protocol listings. The information to be
registered and the procedures to be followed in populating the
registry are described in Section 2.
Name of registry: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP)
Section at http://www.iana.org/protocols:
Registry Title: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP)
Registry Name: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP)
Registration Procedure: Specification Required
Reference: this document
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
Required information: See Section 2.2.1.
Review process: "Specification Required" as described in RFC 5226
[RFC5226].
Size, format, and syntax of registry entries: See Section 2.2.1.
Initial assignments and reservations:
-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
"Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
Document Status:
Standards Track
Reference:
RFC 3915
Registrant Name and Email Address:
IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
-----END FORM-----
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
"E.164 Number Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
Document Status:
Standards Track
Reference:
RFC 4114
Registrant Name and Email Address:
IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
-----END FORM-----
-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
"ENUM Validation Information Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol"
Document Status:
Standards Track
Reference:
RFC 5076
Registrant Name and Email Address:
IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
-----END FORM-----
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
"Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
Document Status:
Standards Track
Reference:
RFC 5910
Registrant Name and Email Address:
IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
-----END FORM-----
In addition, the form used to populate and manage the registry will
be added to the table of Protocol Registration Forms maintained by
IANA.
4. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations to EPP.
However, extensions should be evaluated according to the Security
Considerations of RFC 3735 [RFC3735].
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3979>.
[RFC4879] Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4879>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7451 EPP Extension Registry February 2015
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.
Acknowledgements
The information described in the registry is based on a suggestion
posted to the provreg mailing list by Jay Daley in August 2013.
Author's Address
Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
US
EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Hollenbeck Informational [Page 12]