wdiff rfc7451.original rfc7451.txt

Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7451 Verisign Labs
Intended status:
Category: Informational December 3, 2014
Expires: June 6, January 2015
ISSN: 2070-1721

Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
draft-ietf-eppext-reg-10

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 EPP,
and it specifies a format for an IANA registry to record those
extensions.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid 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 maximum candidate for any level of six months 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 updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 6, 2015.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451.

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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Extension Specification and Registration Procedure . . . . . 3 2
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3. Registration Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7
2.2.4. Updating Registry Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. 10
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. 10
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction

Domain name registries implement a variety of operational and
business models. The differences in these models made make it impossible
to develop a "one size fits all" provisioning protocol, so protocol; the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP, [RFC5730]) [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
Informational 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. 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 can will be used to coordinate the development of EPP
extensions.

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 non-
English versions of the specification can 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.
"designated expert". Section 3 of RFC 5226 [RFC5226] describes the
role of
Designated Experts 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 designated expert is
described in Section 3.2 of RFC 5226. 5226 [RFC5226]. Specific guidelines
for the appointment of Designated Experts 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 experts, as described in Section 3.2 of RFC
5226.
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 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
eppext mailing list. If the specification for an extension is an
IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by the
Designated Expert.
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 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>".

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"). ".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"
"Inactive", text should be included to describe how and when this
state was reached.

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: 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-----
Example form with RFC specification:

-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
"An Extension RFC for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

Document Status:
Standards Track

Reference:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX
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-----

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>, and include a <iana@iana.org> or complete the online form found on the IANA web
site. The subject line indicating 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, 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 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 such time as the
specification again becomes reliably available.

3. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to create a new protocol has created the "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP)" registry to manage EPP extensions. This registry should appear under has
its own heading on IANA's protocol listings, using the same title as the name of the
registry. 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 draft document
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:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3915
RFC 3915

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:
"E.164 Number Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

Document Status:
Standards Track

Reference:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4114
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:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5076
RFC 5076

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:
"Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

Document Status:
Standards Track

Reference:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5910
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 is to 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. Acknowledgements

The information described in the registry is based on a suggestion
posted to the provreg mailing list by Jay Daley in August 2013.

6. References

6.1.

5.1. Normative References

[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005. 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. 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. 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009. 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.

6.2. 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. 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.

Appendix A. Change Log

Initial -00: First working group version.
-01: Added initial registry entries to Section 3.
-02: Spelling corrections. Added Section 2.1.1. Added "Notes"
field to the registration template.
-03: Added reference to Section 2.1 of RFC 3735 Acknowledgements

The information described in Section 2.1.
-04: Added "Status" field to the registration template. Fixed typo
in Section 2.1.1. Reformatted examples and initial registry
entries.
-05: Added text to clarify how existing registry entries can and
can't be edited.
-06: Modified text in Section 2.1.1 to make it clear that it is
possible to register functionally similar extensions.
-07: Address WG last call comments.
-08: Address AD review comments.
-09: Address IETF last call and IESG review comments.
-10: Re-address IETF last call and IESG review comments. Added text based on a suggestion
posted to note that the extension name must be represented using ASCII
characters. provreg mailing list by Jay Daley in August 2013.

Author's Address

Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
US

Email:

EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/