Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
draft-ietf-eppext-reg-07

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (eppext WG)
Last updated 2014-09-01 (latest revision 2014-07-21)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd James Galvin
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2014-07-27)
IESG IESG state AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Pete Resnick
Send notices to eppext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-eppext-reg@tools.ietf.org
Network Working Group                                      S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft                                             Verisign Labs
Intended status: Standards Track                           July 21, 2014
Expires: January 22, 2015

      Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
                        draft-ietf-eppext-reg-07

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 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 January 22, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Acronyms and Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Extension Specification and Registration Procedure  . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Extension Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       3.1.1.  Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Registration Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.1.  Required Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.2.  Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.3.  Registration Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.4.  Updating Registry Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.1.  Acronyms and Abbreviations

      EPP: Extensible Provisioning Protocol
      IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
      IPR: Intellectual Property Rights

2.  Introduction

   Domain name registries implement a variety of operational and
   business models.  The differences in these models made it impossible
   to develop a "one size fits all" provisioning protocol, so the
   Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP, [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].

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

   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.

   An IANA registry can be used to help manage and coordinate the
   development of protocol extensions.  This document describes an IANA
   registry that can be used to coordinate the development of EPP
   extensions.

3.  Extension Specification and Registration Procedure

   This section describes the format of an IANA registry and the
   procedures used to populate and manage registry entries.

3.1.  Extension Specification

   The "Specification Required" policy described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]
   MUST be followed.  Extension specifications MUST be written and
   available in the English language.  Non-English specifications are
   OPTIONAL.  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 describes the role of
   Designated Experts and the function they perform.

3.1.1.  Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria

   A high-level description of the role of the Designated Expert is
   described in Section 3.2 RFC 5226.  Specific guidelines for the
   appointment of Designated Experts and 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.  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].  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

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

   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 eppext mailing list.

   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.

3.2.  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.

3.2.1.  Required Information

   Name of Extension: A case-insensitive text string that contains the
   name of the extension specification.

   Specification Location: A URL [RFC3986] that describes the location
   of the specification.

   Registrant Name and Email Address: The case-insensitive name and
   email address of the person that is responsible for managing the
   registry entry.

   TLDs: A case-insensitive text string description of the top-level
   domain (or domains) for which the extension has been specified.
   "Any" or "ANY" MUST be used if the extension is not associated with a
   specific top-level domain.  Multiple TLDs SHOULD be specified 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.

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

   IPR Disclosure: Either "None", "NONE", or a URL that describes the
   location of an IPR disclosure document.  Depending on the type of
   specification the IPR disclosure MAY be filed with the IETF in
   accordance with RFC 3979 [RFC3979] as updated by RFC 4879 [RFC4879].
   Non-IETF IPR disclosures MUST clearly identify the claimed
   intellectual property rights and terms of use.  "None" or "NONE"
   indicates that the extension is freely available for use with no
   claimed intellectual property rights.

   Status: Either "Active", "ACTIVE", "Inactive", or "INACTIVE".  The
   "Active" status is used for extensions that are currently implemented
   and available for use.  The "Inactive" status is used for extensions
   that are not implemented or are otherwise not available for use.

   Notes: Either "None", "NONE", or other text that describes optional
   notes to be included with the registered extension.  If the Status
   value is "Inactive" or "INACTIVE" text should be included to describe
   how and when this state was reached.

3.2.2.  Registration Form

   The required information MUST be formatted consistently using the
   following form.  Form field names and values MAY appear on the same
   line:

   -----BEGIN FORM-----
   Name of Extension:
   <text string> (quotes are OPTIONAL)

   Specification Location:
   <URL>

   Registrant Name and Email Address:
   <registrant name>, <email address>

   TLDs:
   "Any"|"ANY"|<one or more TLD text strings separated by commas>

   IPR Disclosure:
   "None"|"NONE"|<URL>

   Status:
   "Active"|"ACTIVE"|"Inactive"|"INACTIVE"

   Notes:
   "None"|"NONE"|<optional text>
   -----END FORM-----

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

   Example form with RFC specification:

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

   Specification Location:
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX

   Registrant Name and Email Address:
   John Doe, jdoe@example.com

   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"

   Specification Location:
   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-----

3.2.3.  Registration Processing

   Each registration form sent to IANA MUST contain a single record for
   incorporation into the registry.  The form will be sent via email to
   <iana@iana.org> by the extension registrant.  It MUST have a subject

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

   line indicating 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.

3.2.4.  Updating Registry Entries

   All changes to existing registry entries MUST be documented with text
   in the "Notes" field of the registration form.  Under normal
   circumstances registry entries MAY only be updated by the registrant.
   If the registrant becomes unavailable or otherwise unresponsive, the
   designated expert MAY submit a registration form to IANA to update
   the registrant information.  Entries MAY change state from "Active"
   to "Inactive" and back again as long as state change requests conform
   to the processing requirements identified in this document.  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.

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to create a new protocol registry to manage EPP
   extensions.  The information to be registered and the procedures to
   be followed in populating the registry are described in Section 3.

   Name of registry: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

   Required information: See Section 3.2.1.

   Review process: "Specification Required" as described in RFC 5226
   [RFC5226].

   Size, format, and syntax of registry entries: See Section 3.2.1.

   Initial assignments and reservations:

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

      -----BEGIN FORM-----
      Name of Extension:
      "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the
      Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

      Specification Location:
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3915

      Registrant Name and Email Address:
      Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com

      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)"

      Specification Location:
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4114

      Registrant Name and Email Address:
      Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com

      TLDs: Any

      IPR Disclosure: None

      Status: Active

      Notes: None
      -----END FORM-----

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

      -----BEGIN FORM-----
      Name of Extension:
      "ENUM Validation Information Mapping for the
      Extensible Provisioning Protocol"

      Specification Location:
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5076

      Registrant Name and Email Address:
      Bernie Hoeneisen, bernhard.hoeneisen@switch.ch,
      bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch

      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)"

      Specification Location:
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5910

      Registrant Name and Email Address:
      James Gould, jgould@verisign.com

      TLDs: Any

      IPR Disclosure: None

      Status: Active

      Notes: None
      -----END FORM-----

   In addition, the form used to populate and manage the registry is to
   be added to the table of Protocol Registration Forms maintained by
   IANA.

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

5.  Security Considerations

   Using email to deliver forms to IANA carries a risk of registry
   entries being created or updated by an attacker who is able to spoof
   the email address of a legitimate extension registrant.  This risk
   can be mitigated by replying to received messages with a request to
   confirm the requested action.  The reply will be delivered to the
   specified registrant, who can validate or refute the request.

6.  Acknowledgements

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

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3979]  Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
              3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4879]  Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
              Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

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

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, August 2010.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3735]  Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735, March 2004.

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry                July 2014

Appendix A.  Change Log

   Initial -00:  First working group version.
   -01:  Added initial registry entries to Section 4.
   -02:  Spelling corrections.  Added Section 3.1.1.  Added "Notes"
      field to the registration template.
   -03:  Added reference to Section 2.1 of RFC 3735 in Section 3.1.
   -04:  Added "Status" field to the registration template.  Fixed typo
      in Section 3.1.1.  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 3.1.1 to make it clear that it is
      possible to register functionally similar extensions.
   -07:  Address WG last call comments.

Author's Address

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

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

Hollenbeck              Expires January 22, 2015               [Page 11]