Skip to main content

Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-14

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (regext WG)
Authors Dmitry Belyavsky , James Gould
Last updated 2022-06-27
Replaces draft-belyavskiy-epp-eai
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats
Reviews
OPSDIR Last Call Review Incomplete, due 2022-06-09
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Associated WG milestone
Feb 2022
Submit for publication "Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP protocol"
Document shepherd Jody Kolker
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-04-18
IESG IESG state Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup
Action Holder
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Murray Kucherawy
Send notices to jkolker@godaddy.com
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-14
Network Working Group                                      D. Belyavskiy
Internet-Draft                                                          
Intended status: Standards Track                                J. Gould
Expires: 29 December 2022                                 VeriSign, Inc.
                                                            27 June 2022

Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning
                             Protocol (EPP)
                      draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-14

Abstract

   This document describes an EPP extension that permits usage of
   Internationalized Email Addresses in the EPP protocol and specifies
   the terms when it can be used by EPP clients and servers.  The
   Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), being developed before the
   standards for Internationalized Email Addresses (EAI), does not
   support such email addresses.

   TO BE REMOVED on turning to RFC: The document is edited in the
   dedicated github repo (https://github.com/beldmit/eppeai).  Please
   send your submissions via GitHub.

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 https://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 29 December 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Migrating to Newer Versions of This Extension . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Email Address Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Functional Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Internationalized Email Addresses (EAI) Functional
           Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Scope of Functional Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  Functional Extension Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       5.3.1.  EAI Functional Extension Negotiated . . . . . . . . .   5
       5.3.2.  EAI Functional Extension Not Negotiated . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  EPP Extension Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Verisign EPP SDK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.1.  Change from 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.2.  Change from 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.3.  Change from 02 to 03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.4.  Change from 03 to 04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.5.  Change from 04 to the regext 01 version . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.6.  Change from the regext 01 to regext 02 version  . . . . .  12
     A.7.  Change from the regext 02 to regext 03 version  . . . . .  12
     A.8.  Change from the regext 03 to regext 04 version  . . . . .  12
     A.9.  Change from the regext 04 to regext 05 version  . . . . .  12
     A.10. Change from the regext 05 to regext 06 version  . . . . .  12
     A.11. Change from the regext 06 to regext 07 version  . . . . .  12
     A.12. Change from the regext 07 to regext 08 version  . . . . .  12
     A.13. Change from the regext 08 to regext 09 version  . . . . .  13
     A.14. Change from the regext 09 to regext 10 version  . . . . .  13

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

     A.15. Change from the regext 10 to regext 11 version  . . . . .  13
     A.16. Change from the regext 11 to regext 12 version  . . . . .  13
     A.17. Change from the regext 12 to regext 13 version  . . . . .  13
     A.18. Change from the regext 13 to regext 14 version  . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   [RFC6530] introduced the framework for Internationalized Email
   Addresses.  To make such addresses more widely accepted, the changes
   to various protocols need to be introduced.

   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension that permits usage of Internationalized Email Addresses in
   the EPP protocol and specifies the terms when it can be used by EPP
   clients and servers.  A new form of EPP extension, referred to as a
   Functional Extension, is defined and used to apply the rules for the
   handling of email address elements in all of the [RFC5730] extensions
   negotiated in the EPP session, which include the object and command-
   responses extensions.  The described mechanism can be applied to any
   object or command-response extension that uses an email address.

   The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) specified in [RFC5730] is
   a base document for object management operations and an extensible
   framework that maps protocol operations to objects.  The specifics of
   various objects managed via EPP is described in separate documents.
   This document is only referring to an email address as a property of
   a managed object, such as the <contact:email> element in the EPP
   contact mapping [RFC5733] or the <org:email> element in the EPP
   organization mapping [RFC8543], and command-response extensions
   applied to a managed object.

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Migrating to Newer Versions of This Extension

   Servers that implement this extension SHOULD provide a way for
   clients to progressively update their implementations when a new
   version of the extension is deployed.  A newer version of the
   extension is expected to use an XML namespace URI with a higher
   version number than the prior versions.

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

3.  Email Address Specification

   Support of non-ASCII email address syntax is defined in RFC 6530
   [RFC6530].  This mapping does not prescribe minimum or maximum
   lengths for character strings used to represent email addresses.  The
   exact syntax of such addresses is described in Section 3.3 of
   [RFC6531].  The validation rules introduced in RFC 6531 MUST be
   followed when processing this extension.

   The definition of email address in the EPP RFCs, including
   Section 2.6 of [RFC5733] and Section 4.1.2, 4.2.1, and 4.2.5 of
   [RFC8543], references [RFC5322] for the email address syntax.  The
   XML schema definition in Section 4 of [RFC5733] and Section 5 of
   [RFC8543] defines the "email" element using the type
   "eppcom:minTokenType", which is defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5730]
   as an XML schema "token" type with minimal length of one.  The XML
   schema "token" type will fully support the use of EAI addresses, so
   the primary application of the EAI extension is to apply the use of
   [RFC6531] instead of [RFC5322] for the email address syntax.  Other
   EPP extensions may follow the formal syntax definition using the XML
   schema type "eppcom:minTokenType" and the [RFC5322] format
   specification, where this extension applies to all EPP extensions
   with the same or similar definitions.

   The email address format is formally defined in Section 3.4.1 of
   [RFC5322], which only consists of printable US-ASCII characters for
   both the local-part and the domain ABNF rules.  [RFC6531] extends the
   Mailbox, Local-part and Domain ABNF rules in [RFC5321] to support
   "UTF8-non-ascii", defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC6532], for the local-
   part and U-label, defined in Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890], for the
   domain.  By applying the syntax rules of [RFC6531], the EPP
   extensions will change from supporting only ASCII characters to
   supporting Internationalized characters both in the email address
   local-part and domain-part.

4.  Functional Extension

   [RFC5730] defines three types of extensions at the protocol, object,
   and command-response level, which impact the structure of the EPP
   messages.  A Functional Extension applies a functional capability to
   an existing set of EPP extensions and properties.  The scope of the
   applicable EPP extensions and applicable extension properties are
   defined in the Functional Extension along with the requirements for
   the servers and clients that support it.  The Functional Extension
   needs to cover the expected behavior of the supporting client or
   server when interacting with an unsupporting client or server.
   Negotiating support for a Functional Extension is handled using the
   EPP Greeting and EPP Login services.

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

5.  Internationalized Email Addresses (EAI) Functional Extension

5.1.  Scope of Functional Extension

   The functional extension applies to all object extensions and
   command-response extensions negotiated in the EPP session that
   include email address properties.  Examples include the
   <contact:email> element in the EPP contact mapping [RFC5733] or the
   <org:email> element in the EPP organization mapping [RFC8543].  All
   registry zones (e.g., top-level domains) authorized for the client in
   the EPP session apply.  There is no concept of a per-client, per-
   zone, per-extension, or per-field setting that is used to indicate
   support for EAI, but instead it's a global setting that applies to
   the EPP session.

5.2.  Signaling Client and Server Support

   The client and the server can signal support for the functional
   extension using a namespace URI in the login and greeting extension
   services respectively.  The namespace URI
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:eai-1.0" is used to signal support for
   the functional extension.  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.

5.3.  Functional Extension Behavior

5.3.1.  EAI Functional Extension Negotiated

   If both client and server have indicated the support of the EAI
   addresses during the session establishment, they MUST be able to
   process the EAI address in any message having an email property
   during the established EPP session.  Below are the server and client
   obligations when the EAI extension has been successfuly negotiated in
   the EPP session.

   The server MUST satisfy the following obligations when the EAI
   extension has been negotiated:

   *  Accept EAI compatible addresses for all email properties in the
      EPP session negotiated object extensions and command-response
      extensions.  For example the <contact:email> element in [RFC5733]
      and the <org:email> element in [RFC8543].

   *  Accept EAI compatible addresses for all registry zones (e.g., top-
      level domains) authorized for the client in the EPP session.

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

   *  Email address validation based on EAI validation rules defined in
      Section 3

   *  Storage of email properties that support internationalized
      characters.

   *  Return EAI compatible addresses for all email properties in the
      EPP responses.

   The client MUST satisfy the following obligations when THE EAI
   extension has been negotiated:

   *  Provide EAI compatible addresses for all e-mail properties in the
      EPP session negotiated object extensions and command-response
      extensions.  For example the <contact:email> element in [RFC5733]
      and the <org:email> element in [RFC8543].

   *  Provide EAI compatible addresses for all registry zones (e.g.,
      top-level domains) authorized for the client in the EPP session.

   *  Accept EAI compatible addresses in the EPP responses for all email
      properties in the EPP session negotiated object extensions and
      command-response extensions.

5.3.2.  EAI Functional Extension Not Negotiated

   The lack of EAI support can cause data and functional issues, so an
   EAI supporting client or server needs to handle cases where the
   opposite party doesn't support EAI.  Below are the server and client
   obligations when the EAI extension is not negotiated due to the lack
   of support by the peer.

   The EAI supporting server MUST satisfy the following obligations when
   the client does not support the EAI extension:

   *  When the email property is required in the EPP command, the server
      MUST validate the email property sent by the client using the
      ASCII email validation rules.

   *  When the email property is optional in the EPP command, if the
      client supplies the email property the server MUST validate the
      email property using the ASCII email validation rules.

   *  When the email property is required in the EPP response, the
      server MUST validate whether the email property is an EAI address
      and if so return the error code 2308 "Data management policy
      violation".

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

   *  When the email property is optional in the EPP response and is
      provided, the server MUST validate whether the email property is
      an EAI address and if so return the error code 2308 "Data
      management policy violation".

   The EAI supporting client MUST satisfy the following obligations when
   the server does not support the EAI extension:

   *  When the email property is required in the EPP command and the
      email property is an EAI address, the client MUST provide an ASCII
      email address.  The provided email address should provide a way to
      contact the registrant.  It can be an extra ASCII email address
      collected by registrar or registrar-provided proxy email address.

   *  When the email property is optional in the EPP command and the
      email property is an EAI address and client does not have an ASCII
      address providing a way to contact the registrant, the client MUST
      omit the email property.  If the email property is provided, the
      client MUST provide an ASCII email address.  The provided address
      can be an extra ASCII email address collected by registrar or
      registrar-provided proxy email address.

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  XML Namespace

   This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
   registry mechanism described in RFC 3688 [RFC3688].  The following
   URI assignment should be made by IANA:

   Registration request for the eai namespace:

      URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:eai-1.0
      Registrant Contact:  IESG
      XML:  None.  Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.

6.2.  EPP Extension Registry

   The EPP extension described in this document should be registered by
   IANA in the "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
   (EPP)" registry described in RFC 7451 [RFC7451].  The details of the
   registration are as follows:

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

      Name of Extension: Use of Internationalized Email Addresses
                         in EPP protocol
      Document status:  Standards Track
      Reference:  TBA
      Registrant Name and Email Address:  IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
      Top-Level Domains(TLDs):  Any
      IPR Disclosure:  None
      Status:  Active
      Notes:  None

7.  Implementation Status

   Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
   RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
   [RFC7942].  The description of implementations in this section is
   intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
   drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual
   implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
   Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
   presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not
   intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
   implementations or their features.  Readers are advised to note that
   other implementations may exist.

   According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and
   working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
   benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
   experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
   more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups to use this
   information as they see fit".

7.1.  Verisign EPP SDK

   Organization: Verisign Inc.

   Name: Verisign EPP SDK

   Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes both a full client
   implementation and a full server stub implementation of draft-ietf-
   regext-epp-eai.

   Level of maturity: Development

   Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

   Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License

   Contact: jgould@verisign.com

   URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-
   registry-products/epp-sdks

8.  Security Considerations

   The extended security considerations discussion in [RFC6530] and
   [RFC6531] applies here.

   As email address is often a primary end user contact, an invalid
   email address may put the communication with the end user into risk
   in case when such contact is necessary.  In case of an invalid domain
   name in the email address a malicious actor can register a valid
   domain name with similar U-label (homograph attack) and get a control
   over the domain name associated with the contact using social
   engineering techniques.  To reduce the risk of the use of invalid
   domain names in email addresses, registries SHOULD validate the
   domain name syntax in the provided email addresses and validate
   whether the domain name consists of the code points allow:ed by IDNA
   Rules and Derived Property Values (https://www.iana.org/assignments/
   idna-tables).

   When the EAI functional extension is negotiated by both the client
   and the server, the client and server obligations defined in
   Section 5.3.1 MUST be satisfied.  If the obligations are not
   satisfied by either the client or server, the EAI address may be
   mishandled in processing or storage and be unusable.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Alexander Mayrhofer, Chris Lonvick,
   Gustavo Lozano, Jody Kolker, John C Klensin, John Levine, Klaus
   Malorny, Marc Blanchet, Marco Schrieck, Mario Loffredo, Murray S.
   Kucherawy, Patrick Mevzek, Pete Resnick, Scott Hollenbeck, Takahiro
   Nemoto, Taras Heichenko, and Thomas Corte for their careful review
   and valuable comments.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.27487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.27487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.

   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.27487/RFC5730, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.

   [RFC5733]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.27487/RFC5733,
              August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.

   [RFC6530]  Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
              Internationalized Email", RFC 6530, DOI 10.17487/RFC6530,
              February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6530>.

   [RFC6531]  Yao, J. and W. Mao, "SMTP Extension for Internationalized
              Email", RFC 6531, DOI 10.17487/RFC6531, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6531>.

   [RFC6532]  Yang, A., Steele, S., and N. Freed, "Internationalized
              Email Headers", RFC 6532, DOI 10.17487/RFC6532, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6532>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.27487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

10.2.  Informative References

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

   [RFC7451]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.27487/RFC7451,
              February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451>.

   [RFC8543]  Zhou, L., Kong, N., Yao, J., Gould, J., and G. Zhou,
              "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Organization
              Mapping", RFC 8543, DOI 10.27487/RFC8543, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8543>.

Appendix A.  Change History

A.1.  Change from 00 to 01

   1.  Changed from update of RFC 5733 to use the "Placeholder Text and
       a New Email Element" EPP Extension approach.

A.2.  Change from 01 to 02

   1.  Fixed the XML schema and the XML examples based on validating
       them.

   2.  Added James Gould as co-author.

   3.  Updated the language to apply to any EPP object mapping and to
       use the EPP contact mapping as an example.

   4.  Updated the structure of document to be consistent with the other
       Command-Response Extensions.

   5.  Replaced the use of "eppEAI" in the XML namespace and the XML
       namespace prefix with "eai".

   6.  Changed to use a pointed XML namespace with "0.2" instead of
       "1.0".

A.3.  Change from 02 to 03

   1.  The approach has changed to use the concept of Functional EPP
       Extension.

   2.  The examples are removed

A.4.  Change from 03 to 04

   1.  More detailed reference to email syntax is provided

   2.  The shortened eai namespace reference is removed

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

A.5.  Change from 04 to the regext 01 version

   1.  Provided the recommended placeholder value

A.6.  Change from the regext 01 to regext 02 version

   1.  Removed the concept of the placeholder value

A.7.  Change from the regext 02 to regext 03 version

   1.  Changed to use a pointed XML namespace with "0.3" instead of
       "0.2".

   2.  Some wording improvements

A.8.  Change from the regext 03 to regext 04 version

   1.  Some nitpicking

A.9.  Change from the regext 04 to regext 05 version

   1.  Some nitpicking

   2.  The "Implementation considerations" section is removed

A.10.  Change from the regext 05 to regext 06 version

   1.  Some nitpicking

A.11.  Change from the regext 06 to regext 07 version

   1.  Namespace version set to 1.0

A.12.  Change from the regext 07 to regext 08 version

   1.  Information about implementations is provided.

   2.  Acknowledgments section is added.

   3.  Reference to RFC 7451 is moved to Informative.

   4.  IPR information is provided

   5.  Sections are reordered to align with the other regext documents

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              Use of EAI in EPP                  June 2022

A.13.  Change from the regext 08 to regext 09 version

   1.  Nitpicking according to Murray S.  Kucherawy review

A.14.  Change from the regext 09 to regext 10 version

   1.  Some nitpicking in the security considerations.

A.15.  Change from the regext 10 to regext 11 version

   1.  Nitpicking according mostly GenArt review.

A.16.  Change from the regext 11 to regext 12 version

   1.  XML schema registration request removed.

A.17.  Change from the regext 12 to regext 13 version

   1.  Document updated according to SecDir and ART-ART review.

A.18.  Change from the regext 13 to regext 14 version

   1.  Document updated according the IANA review #1231866.

Authors' Addresses

   Dmitry Belyavskiy
   8 marta st.
   Moscow
   127083
   Russian Federation
   Phone: +7 916 262 5593
   Email: beldmit@gmail.com

   James Gould
   VeriSign, Inc.
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA 20190
   United States of America
   Email: jgould@verisign.com
   URI:   http://www.verisigninc.com

Belyavskiy & Gould      Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 13]