Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over QUIC
draft-yao-regext-epp-quic-01
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jiankang Yao , Hongtao Li , Zhiwei Yan , Dan Keathley , James Gould | ||
| Last updated | 2024-02-18 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-yao-regext-epp-quic-01
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Yao
Internet-Draft H. Li
Intended status: Standards Track M. Zhang
Expires: 21 August 2024 CNNIC
D. Keathley
J. Gould
VeriSign, Inc.
18 February 2024
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over QUIC
draft-yao-regext-epp-quic-01
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
session is mapped onto a QUIC connection. EPP over QUIC (EoQ)
leverages the performance and security features of the QUIC protocol
as an EPP transport.
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 21 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
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
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Session Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Message Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Data Unit Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Registration of an EoQ Identification String . . . . . . 7
7.2. Registration of Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
This document describes how the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP
[RFC5730]) is mapped onto the QUIC transport [RFC9000]. QUIC is a
network protocol that is based on UDP and incorporates native
encryption support using TLS [RFC9001]. Though based on UDP, QUIC
provides connection semantics similar to other stateful protocols.
This document discusses how EPP implementations can work with this
and other features of QUIC while preserving the core EPP semantics.
2. 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
[BCP14] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
here.
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
3. Session Management
Mapping EPP session management facilities onto the QUIC service is
accomplished with a combination of a QUIC connection and QUIC
streams. An EPP session first requires creation of a QUIC connection
between two peers, one that initiates the connection request and one
that responds to the connection request. The initiating peer is
called the "client", and the responding peer is called the "server".
An EPP server MUST listen for QUIC connection requests on a standard
UDP port assigned by IANA.
A successfully established QUIC connection is automatically secured
by the native TLS support that QUIC provides.
Once the QUIC connection is established, the EPP client MUST then
create a QUIC stream. The EPP server MUST return an EPP <greeting>
to the client on that same stream once it is created. After reading
the EPP <greeting> message, the EPP client sends EPP commands and
receives EPP responses on the same stream. A QUIC stream corresponds
to an EPP connection and an authenticated QUIC stream, via a
successful EPP <login>, corresponds to an EPP session. This can also
be referred to as a EoQ session.
An EPP session is normally ended by the client issuing an EPP
<logout> command. A server receiving an EPP <logout> command MUST
end the EPP session and close the QUIC stream.
EoQ connections are established as described in the QUIC transport
specification [RFC9000]. During connection establishment, EoQ
support is indicated by selecting the Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation (ALPN) token "eoq" in the crypto handshake.
A single QUIC connection may allow multiple QUIC streams. This means
that a single EoQ connection may support multiple EoQ sessions. A
server MAY limit the life span of an established EoQ session. EoQ
sessions that are inactive for more than a server-defined period MAY
be ended by a server closing the QUIC stream. A server MAY close EoQ
sessions that have been open and active for longer than a server-
defined limit. Once the last QUIC stream for a QUIC connection is
closed, the server MAY end the QUIC connection immediately.
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
4. Message Exchange
With the exception of the EPP server greeting, EPP messages are
initiated by the EPP client in the form of EPP commands. An EPP
server MUST return an EPP response to an EPP command on the same QUIC
stream that carried the command. If the QUIC stream is closed after
a server receives and successfully processes a command but before the
response can be returned to the client, the server MAY attempt to
undo the effects of the command to ensure a consistent state between
the client and the server. EPP commands are idempotent, so
processing a command more than once produces the same net effect on
the repository as successfully processing the command once.
An EPP client streams EPP commands to an EPP server on an established
QUIC stream. A client MUST NOT distribute commands from a single EPP
session over multiple QUIC streams. A client MAY establish multiple
QUIC streams to support multiple EPP sessions with each session
mapped to a single stream. A server SHOULD limit a client to a
maximum number of QUIC streams per QUIC connection based on server
capabilities and operational load.
EPP describes client-server interaction as a command-response
exchange where the client sends one command to the server and the
server returns one response to the client.
Each EPP data unit MUST contain a single EPP message. Commands MUST
be processed independently.
A server SHOULD impose a limit on the amount of time required for a
client to issue a well-formed EPP command in order to reduce the risk
associated with a resource exhaustion attack. A server SHOULD end an
EPP session and close the QUIC stream if a well-formed command is not
received within the time limit.
A general state machine for an EPP server is described in Section 2
of [RFC5730]. A general client-server message exchange using QUIC
transport is illustrated in Figure 1. It shows the exchange over a
single QUIC stream of a QUIC connection. Many QUIC streams may open
and close during the life of a QUIC connection.
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
Client Server
| |
| Successful QUIC Connection |
| <<------------------------------->> |
| |
| Successful QUIC Stream |
| <<------------------------------->> |
| |
| Send Greeting |
| <<-------------------------------<< |
| |
| Send <login> |
| >>------------------------------->> |
| |
| Send Response |
| <<-------------------------------<< |
| |
| Send Command X |
| >>------------------------------->> |
| |
| Send Response X |
| <<-------------------------------<< |
| |
| Send Command Y |
| >>------------------------------->> |
| |
| Send Response Y |
| <<-------------------------------<< |
| . |
.
.
| Send <logout> |
| >>------------------------------->> |
| |
| Send Response |
| <<-------------------------------<< |
| |
| Close QUIC Stream |
| <<------------------------------->> |
| |
| Close QUIC Connection |
| <<------------------------------->> |
Figure 1: QUIC Client-Server Message Exchange
The EPP server MUST follow the "EPP Server State Machine" procedure
described in [RFC5730].
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
5. Data Unit Format
The EPP data unit contains two fields: a 32-bit header that describes
the total length of the data unit, and the EPP XML instance. The
length of the EPP XML instance is determined by subtracting four
octets from the total length of the data unit. A receiver must
successfully read that many octets to retrieve the complete EPP XML
instance before processing the EPP message. EPP Data Unit Format
(one tick mark represents one bit position):
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| EPP XML Instance |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+//-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Total Length (32 bits): The total length of the EPP data unit
measured in octets in network (big endian) byte order. The octets
contained in this field MUST be included in the total length
calculation. EPP XML Instance (variable length): The EPP XML
instance carried in the data unit.
6. Transport Considerations
Section 2.1 of [RFC5730] describes considerations to be addressed by
protocol transport mappings. This document addresses each of those
considerations using a combination of features of the QUIC protocol
itself and features of this document.
* Command Order: QUIC guarantees ordered processing of data within
each stream. Section 2 of [RFC9000] describes streams in detail.
* Session Mapping: EPP session management utilizes QUIC streams and
is described in Section 3
* Stateful Nature: QUIC supports stateful communications between
endpoints via connection IDs and long-lived streams within each
connection. Sections 2 and 5 of [RFC9000] describe these
features, respectively.
* Frame Data Units: QUIC uses frames as one of its units of
information when sending data over a stream. Part packets-frames
of [RFC9000] describes frames, and packets, in detail.
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
* Congestion Avoidance: QUIC provides various mechanisms to help
achieve congestion avoidance. [RFC9002] describes these
mechanisms in detail.
* Reliability: QUIC uses message acknowledgement, packet
retransmission, and other features to ensure reliability. Part
packetization of [RFC9000] describes these features in detail.
* Pipelining: Pipelining is allowed in EoQ. QUIC streams support
sending multiple frames without waiting for responses from the
other peer. This does not change the basic single command, single
response operating mode of the core EPP protocol.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Registration of an EoQ Identification String
This document creates a new registration for the identification of
EoQ in the "TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN)
Protocol IDs" registry [RFC7301].
* Protocol: EoQ
* Identification Sequence: 0x65 0x6F 0x71 ("eoq")
* Reference: This document
7.2. Registration of Port Number
The "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry"
contains an entry for EPP UDP/700 based on [RFC6335]. However, no
known implementations of EPP over UDP exist. The entry will be
reassigned to reference this draft.
* Service Name: epp
* Port Number: 700
* Transport Protocol(s): UDP
* Assignee: IESG
* Contact: IETF Chair
* Description: EPP run over QUIC
* Reference: This document
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
8. Security Considerations
EPP over QUIC provides the similary securtiy with EPP over TCP with
TLS. Some related security issues have been discussed in [RFC5734]
and [RFC9000].
EoQ servers run the risk of a resource exhaustion attack by allowing
the creation of unlimited QUIC streams per QUIC connection. Servers
SHOULD limit a client to a maximum number of QUIC streams per QUIC
connection based on server capabilities and operational load.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions: Scott Hollenbeck.
10. Normative References
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC5734] 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>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
[RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.
[RFC9002] Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection
and Congestion Control", RFC 9002, DOI 10.17487/RFC9002,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9002>.
Appendix A. Change History
A.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Added Dan Keathley and James Gould as co-authors and aligned the
draft with EPP RFC 5734.
Authors' Addresses
Jiankang Yao
CNNIC
4 South 4th Street,Zhongguancun,Haidian District
Beijing
Beijing, 100190
China
Phone: +86 10 5881 3007
Email: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Hongtao Li
CNNIC
4 South 4th Street,Zhongguancun,Haidian District
Beijing
Beijing, 100190
China
Email: lihongtao@cnnic.cn
Man Zhang
CNNIC
4 South 4th Street,Zhongguancun,Haidian District
Beijing
Beijing, 100190
China
Email: zhangman@cnnic.cn
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EPP over QUIC February 2024
Daniel Keathley
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: dkeathley@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
James Gould
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: jgould@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
Yao, et al. Expires 21 August 2024 [Page 10]