Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-00
Network Working Group J. Gould
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Casanova
Expires: August 17, 2020 SWITCH
February 14, 2020
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-00
Abstract
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
in the response when the client does not support the required service
namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of RFC
5730 poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the server
prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client needs
to be capable of processing all poll messages. This document defines
an operational practice that enables the server to return information
associated with unhandled namespace URIs that is compliant with the
negotiated services defined in RFC 5730.
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 August 17, 2020.
Gould & Casanova Expires August 17, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4
3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
in the response when the client does not support the required service
namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
Show full document text