Network Working Group S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft AFNIC
Intended status: Standards Track March 19, 2018
Expires: September 20, 2018
EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation of domain names
draft-bortzmeyer-regext-epp-dname-02
Abstract
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
extension mapping for the provisioning and management of Domain Name
System for domain names stored in a shared central repository.
Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to
provide the ability to delegate a domain names through DNAME resource
records, thus making the new domain an alias of a previous domain.
REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION This document should be discussed on the
Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) mailing list. The source
of this document is kept on a Gitlab at Framagit [1]. A list of open
issues is there as well [2].
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 September 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
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. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1.1. EPP <check> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.2. EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. EPP <renew> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.4. EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.5. EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Generic Resource Records type . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) described in RFC 5730
[RFC5730]. This mapping, an extension of the domain name mapping
described in RFC 5731 [RFC5731], is specified using the Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0 [W3C.REC-xml-20001006] and XML Schema
notation ([W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]).
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
The EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730] provides a complete
description of EPP command and response structures. A thorough
understanding of the base protocol specification is necessary to
understand the mapping described in this document. Familiarity with
the Domain Name System (DNS) described in RFC 1034 [RFC1034] and
RFC 1035 [RFC1035] and with the DNS DNAME Resource Record type
described in RFC 6672 [RFC6672] is required to understand the DNS
concepts described in this document. (DNAME have properties that may
be surprising at first; for instance, it aliases only the subdomains,
not the owner name of the DNAME record itself.)
The EPP mapping described in this document specifies a mechanism for
the provisioning and management of domain names in a shared central
repository. Today, most registries allow only delegation of domain
names to name servers specified in NS resource records. DNAME
[RFC6672] allow another type of delegation, which can be useful for
instance for the new AS 112 [RFC7535], as proposed in
[I-D.bortzmeyer-dname-root]. Information exchanged via this mapping
can be extracted from the repository and used to publish DNAME
resource records.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client, and
"S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server. "////" is used
to note element values that have been shortened to better fit page
boundaries. Indentation and white space in examples is provided only
to illustrate element relationships and is not a mandatory feature of
this protocol.
XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the
character case presented in order to develop a conforming
implementation.
dnameDeleg-1.0 is used as an abbreviation for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dnameDeleg-1.0.
2. Object Attributes
This extension adds additional elements to the EPP domain name
mapping [RFC5731]. Only those new elements are described here.
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
DNAME information is published by a DNS server to indicate that a
child zone is actually an alias of another zone. A DNAME resource
record (RR) contains a single field named target. See RFC 6672
[RFC6672] for the specific field format.
3. Presentation
It is the server policy to allow DNAME delegations or not. It is
also the server policy to allow (or not) a domain to switch between
these two types of delegation with a EPP <update>.
The interface relies on the use of the <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget>
element for creates, adds, removes, and <domain:info> responses. The
data is provided by the client. If the DNAME target is in a zone
managed by the server, the server operator MAY checks its existence
in its database and the fact that it is not itself a DNAME.
Otherwise, the server operator MAY issue out-of-band DNS queries to
check if the target really exists.
The <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> element contains a domain name, as
described in Section 2.1 of RFC 6672 [RFC6672]. The value of the
<dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> element is represented as a eppcom:labelType
([RFC5730], section 4.4, and [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]).
4. Examples
Example use of the dnameDeleg:dnameTarget, for instance for an EPP
<create>:
<dnameDeleg:dnameTarget>foo.bar.example</dnameDeleg:dnameTarget>
5. EPP Command Mapping
A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730]. The command
mappings described here are specifically for use in provisioning and
managing DNAME delegations via EPP.
5.1. EPP Query Commands
EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check>
to determine if an object is known to the server, <info> to retrieve
detailed information associated with an object, and <transfer> to
retrieve object transfer status information.
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
5.1.1. EPP <check> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <check> command
or <check> response described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731].
Note that an EPP client cannot use <check> to find out if a server
authorizes DNAME delegation for this specific domain (EPP login
information is not sufficient because the fact that the server
supports the extension does not mean it is authorized for all names.)
[REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION: issue #3 discussed the case.]
5.1.2. EPP <info> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <info> command
described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. [REMOVE BEFORE
PUBLICATION: issue #6 discussed whether or not it would be a good
idea.] However, additional elements are defined for the <info>
response.
When an <info> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
<resData> element MUST contain child elements as described in the EPP
domain mapping [RFC5731]. In addition, the EPP <extension> element
SHOULD contain a child <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> element that
identifies the extension namespace if the domain object has data
associated with this extension, based on server policy and depending
on support of the client for dnameDeleg, based on the EPP login
services it provided. The <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> element contains
a domain name as its value. A server MUST NOT return both a
<dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> and a <domain:ns> ([RFC5731], section
3.1.2).
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
Example <info> Response
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
S: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="ok"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
S: <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
S: <domain:authInfo>
S: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget xmlns:dnameDeleg="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dnameDeleg-1.0">
S: foo.bar.example
S: </dnameDeleg:dnameTarget>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
An EPP error response MUST be returned if an <info> command cannot be
processed for any reason.
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
5.2. EPP <transfer> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
command or <transfer> response described in the EPP domain mapping
[RFC5731]. A domain cannot be switched from NS delegation to DNAME
delegation (or vice-versa) through a transfer.
Note that this may be one additional reason for a transfer to fail:
if the gaining registrar does not support DNAME delegation. The
server MUST return error code 2106.
6. EPP Transform Commands
EPP provides five commands to transform objects: <create> to create
an instance of an object, <delete> to delete an instance of an
object, <renew> to extend the validity period of an object,
<transfer> to manage object sponsorship changes, and <update> to
change information associated with an object.
6.1. EPP <create> Command
This extension defines an additional element for the EPP <create>
command described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. No additional
elements are defined for the EPP <create> response.
The EPP <create> command provides a transform operation that allows a
client to create a domain object. In addition to the EPP command
elements described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731], the command
MUST contain an <extension> element, and the <extension> element MUST
contain a child <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> element that identifies the
extension namespace if the client wants to associate data defined in
this extension to the domain object. The <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget>
has a domain name as value. A client MUST NOT send both a
<dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> and <domain:ns> elements. TODO See issue #4
for the choice of the error code(s).
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
Example <create> Command:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
C: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
C: <domain:period unit="y">2</domain:period>
C: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
C: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
C: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
C: <domain:authInfo>
C: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
C: </domain:authInfo>
C: </domain:create>
C: </create>
C: <extension>
C: <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget xmlns:dnameDeleg="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dnameDeleg-1.0">foo.bar.example</dnameDeleg:dnameTarget>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
When a <create> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
response is as described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731].
6.2. EPP <delete> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <delete> command
or <delete> response described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731].
6.3. EPP <renew> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <renew> command
or <renew> response described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731].
6.4. EPP <transfer> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
command or <transfer> response described in the EPP domain mapping
[RFC5731].
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
6.5. EPP <update> Command
This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <update>
command described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. No additional
elements are defined for the EPP <update> response.
The EPP <update> command provides a transform operation that allows a
client to modify the attributes of a domain object. In addition to
the EPP command elements described in the EPP domain mapping, the
command MUST contain an <extension> element, and the <extension>
element MUST contain a child <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> element that
identifies the extension namespace if the client wants to update the
domain object with data defined in this extension. The
<dnameDeleg:dnameTarget> element has a domain name as its value. If
present, it updates the DNAME delegation to the new target, if the
domain was already DNAME-delegated, or it switches the domain to a
DNAME delegation, if it was previously a NS delegation. A server MAY
refuse such a switch, per its policy. In the same way, a RFC 5731
[RFC5731] update with NS information, without the extension decribed
here, switches to NS delegation if the domain was previously DNAME-
delegated.
TODO there is an issue with the switch from NS to DNAME delegation if
the domain had in-bailiwick name servers. See issue #7.
Example <update> Command, Adding and Removing:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
C: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
C: <command>
C: <update>
C: <domain:update
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
C: </domain:update>
C: </update>
C: <extension>
C: <dnameDeleg:dnameTarget xmlns:dnameDeleg="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dnameDeleg-1.0">foo.bar.example
C: </dnameDeleg:dnameTarget>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
When an extended <update> command has been processed successfully,
the EPP response is as described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731].
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
7. Formal Syntax
An EPP object mapping is specified in XML Schema notation. The
formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation of
the object mapping suitable for automated validation of EPP XML
instances. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they
are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI
registration purposes.
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dnameDeleg-1.0"
xmlns:dnameDeleg="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dnameDeleg-1.0"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<annotation>
<documentation>
Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
domain name extension schema
for provisioning DNAME domain names.
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!--
Child element found in EPP commands and response.
-->
<element name="dnameTarget" type="string"/>
</schema>
END
8. Internationalization Considerations
EPP is represented in XML, which provides native support for encoding
information using the Unicode character set and its more compact
representations including UTF-8 [RFC3629]. Conformant XML processors
recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16 [RFC2781]. Though XML includes
provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use
of an "encoding" attribute in an <?xml?> declaration, use of UTF-8 is
RECOMMENDED in environments where parser encoding support
incompatibility exists.
As an extension of the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731], the
internationalization requirements in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
are followed by this extension. This extension does not override any
of the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731] internationalization features.
9. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in RFC 3688 [RFC3688].
Two URI assignments have been completed by the IANA.
Registration request for the extension namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dnameDeleg-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the extension XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:dnameDeleg-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
10. Security Considerations
The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any
security services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730], the EPP
domain name mapping [RFC5731], and protocol layers used by EPP. The
security considerations described in these other specifications apply
to this specification as well.
As with other domain object transforms, the EPP transform operations
described in this document MUST be restricted to the sponsoring
client as authenticated using the mechanisms described in
Sections 2.9.1.1 and 7 of RFC 5730 [RFC5730]. Any attempt to perform
a transform operation on a domain object by any client other than the
sponsoring client MUST be rejected with an appropriate EPP
authorization error.
The provisioning service described in this document involves the
exchange of information that can have an operational impact on the
DNS. A trust relationship MUST exist between the EPP client and
server, and provisioning of DNAME delegation MUST only be done after
the identities of both parties have been confirmed using a strong
authentication mechanism. This is just a repeat of [RFC5734],
section 8.
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
An EPP client might be acting as an agent for a zone administrator
who wants to send DNAME delegation information to be published by the
server operator. Man-in-the-middle attacks are thus possible as a
result of direct client activity or inadvertent client data
manipulation.
11. Acknowledgements
Most of the text has been copied from [RFC5910], so thanks to its
authors.
Thanks to James Gould for a detailed review and for John Levine and
Patrick Mevzek for good remarks. Thanks to Patrick Mevzek for the
first implementation.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC5731] 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>.
[RFC6672] Rose, S. and W. Wijngaards, "DNAME Redirection in the
DNS", RFC 6672, DOI 10.17487/RFC6672, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6672>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20001006]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)",
World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-20001006,
October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006>.
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn,
"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide
Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028,
October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.bortzmeyer-dname-root]
Bortzmeyer, S., "Using DNAME in the DNS root zone for
sinking of special-use TLDs", draft-bortzmeyer-dname-
root-05 (work in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.hildebrand-deth]
Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "DNS Editing Through HTTPS
(DETH)", draft-hildebrand-deth-00 (work in progress),
March 2016.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2781] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO
10646", RFC 2781, DOI 10.17487/RFC2781, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2781>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[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>.
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.
[RFC7535] Abley, J., Dickson, B., Kumari, W., and G. Michaelson,
"AS112 Redirection Using DNAME", RFC 7535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7535, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7535>.
[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>.
12.3. URIs
[1] https://framagit.org/bortzmeyer/ietf-epp-dname
[2] https://framagit.org/bortzmeyer/ietf-epp-dname/issues
[3] https://metacpan.org/pod/Net::DRI
[4] https://metacpan.org/source/PMEVZEK/Net-DRI-
0.96_10/lib/Net/DRI/Protocol/EPP/Extensions/DNAME.pm
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
Appendix A. Generic Resource Records type
The goal of this document is not to allow arbitrary DNS Resource
record types (such as TXT or LOC). Such a mapping would require the
ability to add, update and remove individual records, but it would
allow the EPP server to implement a "delegation-less" registry. An
example of such attempt to define a standard protocol for
provisioning a lot of resource record types is [I-D.hildebrand-deth].
But we don't follow that path. Instead, we keep the idea that the
EPP server registers only delegations, either through NS records or,
as here, a DNAME record. This keeps the mapping much simpler.
For this reason, the possibility to add other resource records
together with the DNAME ([RFC6672], section 2.4) is out-of-scope
here.
Appendix B. Implementation status
RFC-EDITOR: REMOVE 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 [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 [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".
This EPP extension is implemented in the Net::DRI EPP client [3],
written in Perl. The specific part of Net::DRI is DNAME.pm [4].
Author's Address
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EPP Mapping for DNAME delegation March 2018
Stephane Bortzmeyer
AFNIC
1, rue Stephenson
Montigny-le-Bretonneux 78180
France
Phone: +33 1 39 30 83 46
EMail: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
URI: http://www.afnic.fr/
Bortzmeyer Expires September 20, 2018 [Page 16]