Network Working Group S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Expires: November 13, 2003 May 15, 2003
Redemption Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol
draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
extension mapping for the management of Domain Name System (DNS)
domain names subject to the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) policies
defined by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN). Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name
mapping to provide additional features required for RGP processing.
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 RFC 2119 [1].
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:"
represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and
white space in examples is provided only to illustrate element
relationships and is not a REQUIRED feature of this specification.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Changes from Previous Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Redemption Grace Period State Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Status Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1 EPP <check> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2 EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3 EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1 EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2 EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3 EPP <renew> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.4 EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.5 EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 21
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
1. Introduction
This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP). This mapping, an extension
of the domain name mapping described in [2], is specified using the
Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in [3] and XML
Schema notation as described in [4] and [5].
The EPP core protocol specification [6] 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.
Over the course of several months in 2002, the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) developed an implementation
proposal [11] to provide a "grace period" for Domain Name System
(DNS) domain name recovery (or redemption) before a domain name is
purged from the repository of the authoritative registry for the
domain name. This mapping extends the EPP domain <renew> command to
initiate the redemption process for a domain name that has entered
the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) and it extends the EPP domain
<info> response to identify the status of domains that have entered
the RGP.
XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the
character case presented to develop a conforming implementation.
1.1 Changes from Previous Version
(Note to RFC editor: please remove this section completely before
publication as an RFC.)
None, this is the initial version.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
2. Redemption Grace Period State Diagram
The Redemption Grace Period (RGP) involves several domain state
transitions as a domain name moves through the redemption process:
1. A domain is initially in the EPP "ok" status, or some other
status that allows processing of the EPP <delete> command.
2. A <delete> command is received and processed for the domain
name.
3. RGP begins once the <delete> command is processed successfully.
The EPP status changes to "pendingDelete", and the RGP status is
initialized to "redemptionPeriod". The domain remains in this
state until either a <restore> operation is requested or the
redemption period elapses.
4. A <restore> operation can be requested using the extended EPP
<renew> command. Go to step 8 if the redemption period elapses
before a <restore> request is received.
5. If the <restore> is successful, the Registry waits to receive a
restore report from the registrar for a period of time defined
by the Registry. The EPP status remains "pendingDelete" (TBD:
should it instead change back to "ok"?) and the RGP status
changes to "pendingRestore". (TBD: should the report be
submitted through the protocol (as part of the <restore>) or an
out-of-band facility such as a web site?)
6. The domain name returns to the redemption period state (state 3)
if a restore report is not received.
7. If a restore report is received the EPP status returns to "ok"
(or whatever it was prior to processing the <delete> command),
and the RGP status is removed completely.
8. The redemption period elapses before a <restore> request is
received.
9. The EPP status remains "pendingDelete" and the RGP status
changes to "pendingDelete". The domain name remains in this
state for a period of time defined by the Registry.
10. The domain name is purged once the pending delete period
elapses.
11. The domain name is available for re-registration.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
|
|
v
+----------------------+ (2) +----------------------+
|EPP: ok (1)| <delete> |EPP: pendingDelete (3)|
|RGP: N/A |--------->|RGP: redemptionPeriod |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
^ (4) | ^ |
| <restore> | | No (8) |
| +-----------+ | <restore> |
| | | |
| v | v
| +----------------------+ | +----------------------+
| |EPP: pendingDelete (5)| | |EPP: pendingDelete (9)|
| |RGP: pendingRestore |---------+ |RGP: pendingDelete |
| +----------------------+ Report +----------------------+
| | not (6) |
| (7) | Received Purge (10) |
| Report Received | |
+--------------------+ v
+----------------------+
| Purged (11)|
| |
+----------------------+
Figure 1: RGP State Diagram
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
3. Object Attributes
This extension adds additional elements to the domain name mapping
described in the EPP domain mapping [2]. Only new element
descriptions are described here.
3.1 Status Values
This extension defines three new status values to represent the
different states that a domain can be in as a result of redemption
grace period processing. These are:
redemptionPeriod: This status value is used to describe a domain
for which a <delete> command has been received, but the domain has
not yet been purged because an opportunity exists to restore the
domain and abort the deletion process. The amount of time that a
domain can stay in this status before being entering purge
processing is a matter of registry policy.
pendingRestore: This status value is used to describe a domain
that is in the process of being restored after being in the
redemptionPeriod state. The amount of time that a domain can stay
in this status before being returned to the redemptionPeriod state
is a matter of registry policy.
pendingDelete: This status value is used to describe a domain that
has entered the purge processing state after completing the
redemptionPeriod state. The amount of time that a domain can stay
in this status before being being purged is a matter of registry
policy. A domain in this status MUST also be in the pendingDelete
status described in the EPP domain mapping [2].
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
4. EPP Command Mapping
A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
in the EPP core protocol specification [6]. The command mappings
described here are specifically for use in implementing redemption
grace period processes via EPP.
4.1 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.
4.1.1 EPP <check> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <check> command
or <check> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].
4.1.2 EPP <info> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <info> command
described in the EPP domain mapping [2]. 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 [2].
In addition, the EPP <extension> element MUST contain a child
<rgp:infData> element that identifies the RGP namespace and the
location of the RGP schema. The <rgp:infData> element contains a
single <rgp:rgpStatus> element that contains a single attribute "s"
whose value describes the current RGP status of the domain. Possible
status values are described in section Section 3.1.
Example <info> response for "redemptionPeriod" status:
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: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
S: epp-1.0.xsd">
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"
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
S: domain-1.0.xsd">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="pendingDelete"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:ns>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.net</domain:hostObj>
S: </domain:ns>
S: <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
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: <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
S: rgp-1.0.xsd">
S: <rgp:rgpStatus s="redemptionPeriod"/>
S: </rgp:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Example <info> response extension for "pendingRestore" status (note
that only the extension element changes from the first example):
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
S: <extension>
S: <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
S: rgp-1.0.xsd">
S: <rgp:rgpStatus s="pendingRestore"/>
S: </rgp:infData>
S: </extension>
Example <info> response extension for "pendingDelete" status (note
that only the extension element changes from the first example):
S: <extension>
S: <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
S: rgp-1.0.xsd">
S: <rgp:rgpStatus s="pendingDelete"/>
S: </rgp:infData>
S: </extension>
4.1.3 EPP <transfer> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
command or <transfer> response described in the EPP domain mapping
[2].
4.2 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.
4.2.1 EPP <create> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <create> command
or <create> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].
4.2.2 EPP <delete> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <delete> command
or <delete> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].
4.2.3 EPP <renew> Command
This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <renew>
command and response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
The EPP <renew> command provides a transform operation that allows a
client to extend the registration period a domain object. In
addition to the EPP command elements described in the EPP domain
mapping [2], the command MUST contain an <extension> element. The
<extension> element MUST contain a child <rgp:renew> element that
identifies the RGP namespace and the location of the RGP schema. The
<rgp:renew> element contains a single <rgp:restore> element that
contains no child elements of its own.
Example <renew> 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: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
C: epp-1.0.xsd">
C: <command>
C: <renew>
C: <domain:renew
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
C: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
C: domain-1.0.xsd">
C: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
C: <domain:curExpDate>2003-05-18</domain:curExpDate>
C: <domain:period unit="y">1</domain:period>
C: </domain:renew>
C: </renew>
C: <extension>
C: <rgp:renew xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
C: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
C: rgp-1.0.xsd">
C: <rgp:restore/>
C: </rgp:renew>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
When an extended <renew> command has been processed successfully, the
EPP response is as described in the EPP domain mapping [2] except
that an extension element is added to describe RGP status as a result
of processing the <renew> command. The extension element contains a
single child element (<renData>) that itself contains a single child
element (<rgpStatus>) that contains a single attribute "s" whose
value MUST be "pendingRestore" if the <restore> request has been
accepted.
Example <renew> response:
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
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: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
S: epp-1.0.xsd">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:renData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
S: domain-1.0.xsd">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:exDate>2004-05-18T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: </domain:renData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <rgp:renData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
S: rgp-1.0.xsd">
S: <rgp:rgpStatus s="pendingRestore"/>
S: </rgp:renData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
4.2.4 EPP <transfer> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
command or <transfer> response described in the EPP domain mapping
[2].
4.2.5 EPP <update> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <update> command
or <update> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
5. 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:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<annotation>
<documentation>
Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
domain name extension schema for redemption grace period (RGP)
processing.
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!--
Child elements found in EPP commands.
-->
<element name="renew" type="rgp:renewType"/>
<!--
Child elements of the <renew> command.
-->
<complexType name="renewType">
<sequence>
<element name="restore"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!--
Child response elements.
-->
<element name="infData" type="rgp:respDataType"/>
<element name="renData" type="rgp:respDataType"/>
<!--
<info> and <renew> response elements.
-->
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
<complexType name="respDataType">
<sequence>
<element name="rgpStatus" type="rgp:statusType"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!--
Status is a combination of attributes and an optional human-readable
message that may be expressed in languages other than English.
-->
<complexType name="statusType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="normalizedString">
<attribute name="s" type="rgp:statusValueType"
use="required"/>
<attribute name="lang" type="language"
default="en"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
<simpleType name="statusValueType">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="pendingDelete"/>
<enumeration value="pendingRestore"/>
<enumeration value="redemptionPeriod"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!--
End of schema.
-->
</schema>
END
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
6. 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 [9]. Conformant XML processors
recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16 [10]. 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 [2], the elements, element
content, attributes, and attribute values described in this document
MUST inherit the internationalization conventions used to represent
higher-layer domain and core protocol structures present in an XML
instance that includes this extension.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
7. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [7]. Two URI
assignments are requested.
Registration request for the RGP namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:RGP-1.0
Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the RGP XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:RGP-1.0
Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
8. Security Considerations
The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any
security services beyond those described by EPP [6], the EPP domain
name mapping [2], and protocol layers used by EPP. The security
considerations described in these other specifications apply to this
specification as well.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
9. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following people who have provided
significant contributions to the development of this document:
TBD.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol Domain Name
Mapping", draft-ietf-provreg-epp-domain-07 (work in progress),
April 2003.
[3] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed)", W3C REC-xml,
October 2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml>.
[4] Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M. and N. Mendelsohn, "XML
Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C REC-xmlschema-1, May 2001,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>.
[5] Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
REC-xmlschema-2, May 2001, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>.
[6] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol",
draft-ietf-provreg-epp-09 (work in progress), March 2003.
[7] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry",
draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-04 (work in progress), July
2002.
[8] Bray, T., Hollander, D. and A. Layman, "Namespaces in XML", W3C
REC-xml-names, January 1999, <http://www.w3.org/TR/
REC-xml-names>.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
Informative References
[9] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC
2279, January 1998.
[10] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646",
RFC 2781, February 2000.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
URIs
[11] <http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm>
Author's Address
Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign, Inc.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166-6503
US
EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.com
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft EPP RGP Mapping May 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Hollenbeck Expires November 13, 2003 [Page 22]
