Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-06

Network Working Group                                      S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft                                             Verisign Labs
Obsoletes: 7451 (if approved)                              14 April 2026
Intended status: Best Current Practice                                  
Expires: 16 October 2026

      Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
                 draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-06

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.  If approved, this document obsoletes RFC 7451.

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 16 October 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Extension Specification and Registration Procedure  . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Extension Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Registration Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Required Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   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 [STD69] 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.

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

   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.

   This update was written to address a few issues that were identified
   with RFC 7451 [RFC7451] over time.  The name of the mailing list used
   to review and discuss registration requests was changed from "eppext"
   to "regext" throughout the document.  Text has been added to describe
   reviewer responsibility to confirm correctness of URIs used in
   extension registration requests.  "Other" has been added to the set
   of document status values for the registry to avoid confusion with
   "Informational" RFCs.  Section 2.2.3 has been updated to note that
   registry entries can be removed with IESG approval.  Section 2.2.2
   has been updated by changing "<registrant name>, <email address>" to
   "<name>, <address>" to meet right margin constraints.

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.  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 8126 [RFC8126].  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.

   The "Specification Required" policy requires review by a designated
   expert.  Section 5 of RFC 8126 [RFC8126] describes the role of
   designated experts and the function they perform.  This policy also
   requires "a permanent and readily available public specification".
   RFC documents meet that requirement.  Proprietary specifications may
   meet that requirement, depending on how they are archived and
   accessible.  Internet-Draft documents do not meet that requirement.
   RFC 2026 [RFC2026] notes that "Internet-Drafts have no formal status,
   and are subject to change or removal at any time".

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

2.1.1.  Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria

   A high-level description of the role of the designated expert is
   described in Section 5.2 of RFC 8126 [RFC8126].  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 5.2 of RFC
   8126 [RFC8126].  The pool should have a single administrative chair
   who is appointed by the IESG.  The designated experts MUST use the
   existing regext mailing list (regext@ietf.org) or its successor for
   public discussion of registration requests.

   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).
   URIs proposed in extensions (XML namespace and schema registration
   requests are commonly found in EPP extensions) should be evaluated
   for both syntactic and semantic correctness.  XML schemas, XML schema
   URIs, and XML namespace URIs defined in the extension specification
   MUST be registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures
   described in RFC 3688 [RFC3688].  IETF namespaces MUST be reserved
   for IETF specifications.  Non-IETF namespaces MUST be used for non-
   IETF specifications (which includes RFC documents published using the
   Independent Submission stream); the designated experts may need to
   work with a registrant to identify URIs that can be added to the IETF
   XML Registry.  Extensions and any normative reference necessary to
   implement the extension MUST NOT be denoted with "work in-progress"
   or any similar description.

   The results of the evaluation MUST be shared via email with the
   registrant and the regext 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
   regext 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

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

   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 of the specification document.
   For RFC documents, the possible set of values includes "Standards
   Track", "Informational", "Experimental", "Historic", and "BCP" as
   described in Sections 4 and 5 of RFC 2026 [RFC2026].  For documents
   that are not RFCs, this will always be "Other".

   Reference: A permanent, 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 that meets the
   "Specification Required" registry policy.

   Registrant Name and Email Address: The name and email address of the
   person that is responsible for managing the registry entry.  If the
   extension is registered by an IETF stream RFC, this can simply be
   listed as "IETF, <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").
   Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) TLDs MUST be specified in A-label
   [RFC5890] format.  If the extension is not associated with a specific

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

   top-level domain, the case-insensitive text string "Any" can be used
   to indicate that.  If the extension is not associated with domain
   name processing, the case-insensitive text string "N/A" (Not
   Applicable) 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 8179 [RFC8179] 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.  "Inactive" can also be used for
   extensions for which a reference specification becomes unavailable as
   described in Section 2.2.4.

   Notes: Either "None" or other text that describes optional notes to
   be included with the registered extension.  If the Status value is
   "Inactive", text MUST 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.

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

    Document Status: <document status>

    Reference: <RFC number, URL, etc.>

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

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

    IPR Disclosure: "None"|<URL>

    Status: "Active"|"Inactive"

    Notes: "None"|<optional text>

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

    -----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:  RFC XXXX

    Registrant Name and Email Address:  IETF, <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: Other

    Reference:
    https://www.example.com/html/example-epp-ext.txt

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

    TLDs: .example

    IPR Disclosure:
    https://www.example.com/ipr/example-epp-ext-ipr.html

    Status: Active

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

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

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 MUST indicate whether the enclosed form
   represents an insertion of a new record (indicated by the word
   "INSERT" in the subject line), replacement of an existing record
   (indicated by the word "MODIFY" in the subject line), deactivation of
   an existing record (indicated by the word "DEACTIVATE" in the subject
   line), or removal of an existing record (indicated by the word
   "REMOVE" in the subject line).  Registrations created through IETF
   consensus can only be removed or deactivated with IESG Approval (see
   [RFC8126]).  Registrations not created through IETF consensus can be
   removed or deactivated with the approval of the IESG, in consultation
   with or at the request of the Designated Experts.  Registrations not
   created through IETF consensus can also be removed or deactivated by
   the original registrant, in consultation with the Designated Experts.
   On receipt of a 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 current working
   group mailing list focused on the development of EPP extensions.

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.

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

   Name of registry: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
   (EPP)

      Section at https://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
        Required information:
          See Section 2.2.1
        Review process:
          "Specification Required" as described in RFC 8126 [RFC8126]
        Size, format, and syntax of registry entries:
          See Section 2.2.1
        Initial assignments and reservations:
          Preserved from the existing registry.  Please change all non-
          RFC entries in the registry that have document status
          "Informational" to document status "Other".

   In addition, the form used to populate and manage the registry has
   been added to the table of Protocol Registration Forms maintained by
   IANA.  IANA is further requested to forward all designated expert
   review requests to both the designated expert and the "regext"
   mailing list or its successor.

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] and STD 69 [STD69].

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [STD69]    Internet Standard 69,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std69>.
              At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

              Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

              Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.

              Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732,
              August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5732>.

              Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733,
              August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.

              Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Transport over TCP", STD 69, RFC 5734,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5734, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5734>.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC3735]  Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7451]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451,
              February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451>.

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8179]  Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
              Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.

Acknowledgements

   The information described in the registry is based on a suggestion
   posted to the provreg mailing list by Jay Daley in August 2013.  The
   need to update RFC 7451 was first proposed by Gavin Brown.
   Additional feedback for the update was provided by the following
   people: Gavin Brown, James Galvin, James Gould, Pawel Kowalik, Andrew
   Newton, Jasdip Singh.

Change Log

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   -00:  Initial WG version.

   -01:  WG last call edits: added reference to RFC 2026 to clarify the
      status of Internet-Draft documents as extension specifications.
      "IESG approval" -> "IESG Approval" in Section 2.2.3.  Added
      DEACTIVATE and REMOVE request processing to Section 2.2.3.
      Clarified use of IETF namespaces and "work in progress"
      specifications in Section 2.2.1.  Clarified status values in
      Section 2.2.1.  Updated acknowledgements.

   -02:  Changed intended status from Informational to BCP.  Added text
      to address Independent Submission stream RFCs to Section 2.1.
      Noted that the value of the TLDs field (Section 2.2.1) can be "N/
      A".  Added text to Section 2.2.1 to ensure that it's consistent
      with Section 2.2.4.  Updated examples to use "https" instead of
      "http".  Updated acknowledgements.

   -03:  Updated to use BCP 14 keywords.  Updated Section 2.1 and
      Section 2.1.1 to clarify ISE RFC use as a reference specification
      for an extension.

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft           EPP Extension Registry               April 2026

   -04:  Second WG last call edits: Updated "XML schemas, XML schema
      URIs, and XML namespace URIs" wording in Section 2.2.1.  Noted
      that the value of "TLDs" can be "N/A" in Section 2.2.2.  Updated
      "removed or deactivated" wording in Section 2.2.3.  Changed RFC
      3735 from an informative reference to a normative reference.
      Changed "IESG" to "IETF" in the "Registrant Name and Email
      Address" description in Section 2.2.1 and the example registration
      template in Section 2.2.2.  Updated obsolete normative references
      to RFCs 3979 and 4879 (obsoleted by RFC 8179).

   -05:  Post-WG last call edits: changed "should not" to "SHOULD NOT"
      in the last sentence of Section 2.1.1.  Changed "RFC 5730" to "STD
      69" in Section 1 and added "STD 69" to Section 4.

   -06:  Shepherd write-up edit: Added "If approved" sentence to the
      Abstract.

Author's Address

   Scott Hollenbeck
   Verisign Labs
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA 20190
   United States of America
   Email: sah@sahollenbeck.com, shollenbeck@verisign.com
   URI:   https://www.verisignlabs.com/

Hollenbeck               Expires 16 October 2026               [Page 12]