Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-20

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the namespace (ns) registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

ID: epp:eai-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:eai-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the schema registry also on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

ID: epp:eai-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:epp:eai-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Name of Extension: Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in EPP protocol
Document status: Standards Track
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Registrant: IESG
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None

As this also requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Michelle Thangtamsatid
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai@ietf.org, jkolker@godaddy.com, regext-chairs@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of Internationalized Email Addresses in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Use of Internationalized
Email Addresses in the Extensible
  Provisioning Protocol (EPP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-06-09. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

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
  appearing 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.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard is the requested type of RFC.  Discussions among the working group led us to agree that this RFC fit best in the "A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention or format" described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2026.  It is included in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

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.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

The document has been discussed within the regext working group with the authors addressing all comments by incorporating agreed upon changes into the document.  There was nothing worthy of noting during the WG Process. 

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Verisign has implemented a full client and server stub implementation.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shephard is Jody Kolker, jkolker@godaddy.com
Area Director is Murray Kucherawy, msk@fb.com

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

All normative references have been verified. 
No IPR disclosures have been submitted for this document.
I've reviewed the mailing lists for the regext working group and have found no remaining objections to this document.  I believe this document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

I have no specific concerns with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Both authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

It has been my observation that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No ID nits have been identified.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Extensions for XML Namespace requested have been reviewed and verified that they are listed correctly in the document.
Extensions for the EPP Extension Registry have been reviewed and verified that they are listed correctly in the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard is the requested type of RFC.  Discussions among the working group led us to agree that this RFC fit best in the "A Technical Specification is any description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention or format" described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2026.  It is included in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

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.


Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

The document has been discussed within the regext working group with the authors addressing all comments by incorporating agreed upon changes into the document.  There was nothing worthy of noting during the WG Process. 

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Verisign has implemented a full client and server stub implementation.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shephard is Jody Kolker, jkolker@godaddy.com
Area Director is Murray Kucherawy, msk@fb.com

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

All normative references have been verified. 
No IPR disclosures have been submitted for this document.
I've reviewed the mailing lists for the regext working group and have found no remaining objections to this document.  I believe this document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

I have no specific concerns with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Both authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

It has been my observation that the WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No ID nits have been identified.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Extensions for XML Namespace requested have been reviewed and verified that they are listed correctly in the document.
Extensions for the EPP Extension Registry have been reviewed and verified that they are listed correctly in the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.