Internet Engineering Task Force S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
January 15, 2002 Expires: July 15, 2002
Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements
<draft-ietf-provreg-grrp-reqs-05.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.
Abstract
This document describes high-level functional and interface
requirements for a client-server protocol for the registration and
management of Internet domain names in shared registries. Specific
technical requirements detailed for protocol design are not presented
here. Instead, this document focuses on the basic functions and
interfaces required of a protocol to support multiple registry and
registrar operational models.
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 [RFC2119].
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................. 3
1.1 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations .................... 3
2. General Description .......................................... 5
2.1 System Perspective .......................................... 5
2.2 System Functions ............................................ 5
2.3 User Characteristics ........................................ 5
2.4 Assumptions ................................................. 5
3. Functional Requirements ...................................... 7
3.1 Session Management .......................................... 7
3.2 Identification and Authentication ........................... 7
3.3 Transaction Identification .................................. 7
3.4 Object Management ........................................... 8
3.5 Domain Status Indicators .................................... 13
3.6 Transaction Completion Status ............................... 14
4. External Interface Requirements .............................. 15
4.1 User Interfaces ............................................. 15
4.2 Hardware Interfaces ......................................... 15
4.3 Software Interfaces ......................................... 15
4.4 Communications Interfaces ................................... 15
5. Performance Requirements ..................................... 16
6. Design Constraints ........................................... 16
6.1 Standards Compliance ........................................ 16
6.2 Hardware Limitations ........................................ 16
7. Service Attributes ........................................... 17
7.1 Reliability ................................................. 17
7.2 Availability ................................................ 17
7.3 Scalability ................................................. 17
7.4 Maintainability ............................................. 18
7.5 Extensibility ............................................... 18
7.6 Security .................................................... 18
8. Other Requirements ........................................... 19
8.1 Database Requirements ....................................... 19
8.2 Operational Requirements .................................... 19
8.3 Site Adaptation Requirements ................................ 19
8.4 Data Collection Requirements ................................ 19
9. Internationalization Requirements ............................ 20
10. IANA Considerations ......................................... 21
11. Security Considerations ..................................... 21
12. Acknowledgements ............................................ 22
13. References .................................................. 22
14. Editor's Address ............................................ 23
A. Revisions From Previous Version .............................. 23
B. Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 24
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
1. Introduction
The advent of shared domain name registration systems illustrates the
utility of a common, generic protocol for registry-registrar
interaction. A standard generic protocol will allow registrars to
communicate with multiple registries through a common interface,
reducing operational complexity. This document describes high level
functional and interface requirements for a generic provisioning
protocol suitable for registry-registrar operations. Detailed
technical requirements are not addressed in this document.
This document is being discussed on the "ietf-provreg" mailing list.
To join the list, send a message to <majordomo@cafax.se> with the
words "subscribe ietf-provreg" in the body of the message. There is a
web site for the list archives at http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg.
1.1 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
ccTLD: Country Code Top Level Domain. ".us" is an example of a ccTLD.
CORE: Council of Registrars
DNS: Domain Name System
gTLD: Generic Top Level Domain. ".com" is an example of a gTLD.
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
IP Address: Either or both IPv4 or IPv6 address.
IPv4: Internet Protocol version 4
IPv6: Internet Protocol version 6
NSI: Network Solutions, Inc.
RRP: Registry-Registrar Protocol
TLD: Top Level Domain. A generic term used to describe both gTLDs and
ccTLDs that exist under the top-level root of the domain name
hierarchy.
Exclusive Registration System: A domain name registration system in
which registry services are limited to a single registrar. Exclusive
Registration Systems are either loosely coupled (in which case the
separation between registry and registrar systems is readily evident),
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
or tightly coupled (in which case the separation between registry and
registrar systems is obscure).
Name Space: The range of values that can be assigned within a
particular node of the domain name hierarchy.
Object: A generic term used to describe entities that are created,
updated, deleted, and otherwise managed by a generic registry-
registrar protocol.
Registrant: An entity that registers domain names in a registry
through the services provided by a registrar. Registrants include
individuals, organizations, and corporations.
Registrar: An entity that provides front-end domain name registration
services to registrants, providing a public interface to registry
services.
Registry: An entity that provides back-end domain name registration
services to registrars, managing a central repository of information
associated with domain name delegations. A registry is typically
responsible for publication and distribution of zone files used by the
Domain Name System.
Shared Registration System: A domain name registration system in which
registry services are shared among multiple independent registrars.
Shared Registration Systems require a loose coupling between
registrars and a registry.
Thick Registry: A registry in which all of the information associated
with registered entities, including both technical information
(information needed to produce zone files) and social information
(information needed to implement operational, business, or legal
practices), is stored within the registry repository.
Thin Registry: A registry in which all elements of the social
information associated with registered entities is distributed between
a shared registry and the registrars served by the registry.
Zone: The complete set of information for a particular "pruned"
subtree of the domain space. The zone concept is described fully in
[RFC1035].
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
2. General Description
A basic understanding of domain name registration systems provides
focus for the enumeration of functional and interface requirements of
a protocol to serve those systems. This section provides a high-level
description of domain name registration systems to provide context for
the requirements identified later in this document.
2.1 System Perspective
A domain name registration system consists of a protocol and
associated software and hardware that permits registrars to provide
Internet domain name registration services within the name spaces
administered by a registry. A registration system can be shared among
multiple competing registrars, or it can be served by a single
registrar that is either tightly or loosely coupled with back-end
registry services. The system providing registration services for the
.com, .net, and .org gTLDs is an example of a shared registration
system serving multiple competing registrars. The systems providing
registration services for some ccTLDs and the .gov and .mil gTLDs are
examples of registration systems served by a single registrar.
2.2 System Functions
Registrars access a registry through a protocol to register objects
and perform object management functions. Required functions include
session management; object creation, update, renewal, and deletion;
object query; and object transfer.
A registry generates DNS zone files for the name spaces it serves.
Zone files are created and distributed to a series of name servers
that provide the foundation for the domain name system.
2.3 User Characteristics
Protocol users fall into two broad categories: entities that use
protocol client implementations and entities that use protocol server
implementations, though an entity can provide both client and server
services if it provides intermediate services. A protocol provides a
loose coupling between these communicating entities.
2.4 Assumptions
There is one and only one registry that is authoritative for a given
name space and zone.
A registry can be authoritative for more than one name space and zone.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
Some registry operations can be billable. The impact of a billable
operation can be mitigated through the specification of non-billable
operations that allow a registrar to make informed decisions before
executing billable operations.
A registry can choose to implement a subset of the features provided
by a generic registry-registrar protocol. A thin registry, for
example, might not provide services to register social information.
Specification of minimal implementation compliance requirements is
thus an exercise left for a formal protocol definition document that
addresses the functional requirements specified here.
A protocol that meets the requirements described here can be called
something other than "Generic Registry Registrar Protocol".
The requirements described in this document are not intended to limit
the set of objects that can be managed by a generic registry-registrar
protocol.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
3. Functional Requirements
This section describes functional requirements for a registry-
registrar protocol. Technical requirements that describe how these
requirements are to be met are out of scope for this document.
3.1 Session Management
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly establish a
client session with a registry server.
[2] In a connection-oriented environment, a server MUST respond to
connection attempts with information that identifies the server and
the default server protocol version.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services that allow a client to request
use of a specific protocol version as part of negotiating a session.
[4] The protocol MUST provide services that allow a server to decline
use of a specific protocol version as part of negotiating a session.
[5] A session MUST NOT be established if the client and server are
unable to reach agreement on the protocol version to be used for the
requested session.
[6] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly end an
established session.
[7] The protocol MUST provide services that ensure transactional
integrity if a session is aborted prematurely.
3.2 Identification and Authentication
[1] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to
identify registrar clients and registry servers before granting access
to other protocol services.
[2] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to
authenticate registrar clients and registry servers before granting
access to other protocol services.
[3] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to
negotiate an authentication mechanism acceptable to both client and
server.
3.3 Transaction Identification
[1] Registry operations that create, modify, or delete objects MUST be
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
associated with a registry-unique identifier. The protocol MUST allow
each transaction to be identified in a permanent and globally unique
manner to facilitate temporal ordering and state management services.
3.4 Object Management
This section describes requirements for object management, including
identification, registration, association, update, transfer, renewal,
deletion, and query.
3.4.1 Object Identification
Some objects, such as name servers and contacts, have utility in
multiple registries. However, maintaining disjoint copies of object
information in multiple registries can lead to inconsistencies that
have adverse consequences for the Internet. For example, changing a
name server name in one registry, but not in a second registry that
refers to the server for domain name delegation, can produce
unexpected DNS query results.
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to associate an object
identifier with every object.
[2] Object identifiers MUST be globally unique.
[3] An object's identifier MUST NOT change during the lifetime of the
object in a particular repository, even if administrative control of
the object changes over time.
[4] An object identifier MUST contain information that unambiguously
identifies the object.
[5] Object identifier format specified by the protocol SHOULD be
easily parsed and understood by humans.
[6] An object's identifier MUST be generated and stored when an object
is created.
3.4.2 Object Registration
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to register Internet domain
names.
[2] The protocol MUST permit a starting and ending time for a domain
name registration to be negotiated, thereby allowing a registry to
implement policies allowing a range of registration validity periods,
and enabling registrars to select a period for each registration they
submit from within the valid range based on out-of-band negotiation
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
between the registrar and the registrant. Registries SHOULD be allowed
to accept indefinitely valid registrations if the policy that they are
implementing permits, and to specify a default validity period if one
is not selected by a registrar. Registries MUST be allowed to specify
minimal validity periods consistent with prevailing or preferred
practices for fee-for-service recovery. The protocol MUST provide
features to ensure that both registry and registrar have a mutual
understanding of the validity period at the conclusion of a successful
registration event.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services to register name servers. Name
server registration MUST NOT be limited to a specific period of time.
Name servers MUST be registered with a valid IPv4 or IPv6 address when
a "glue record" is required for delegation. A name server MAY be
registered with multiple IP addresses. Multiple name servers using
distinct server names MAY share an IP address.
[4] The protocol MUST provide services to manage delegation of zone
authority. Names of name servers MUST NOT be required to be tied to
the name of the zone(s) for which the server is authoritative.
[5] The protocol MUST provide services to register social information
describing human and organizational entities. Registration of social
information MUST NOT be limited to a specific period of time. Social
information MAY include a name (individual name, organization name, or
both), address (including street address, city, state or province (if
applicable), postal code, and country), voice telephone number, email
address, and facsimile telephone number.
[6] Protocol services to register an object MUST be available to all
authorized registrars.
3.4.3 Object Association
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to associate name servers with
domain names to delegate authority for zones. A domain name MAY have
multiple authoritative name servers. Name servers MAY be
authoritative for multiple zones.
[2] The protocol MUST provide services to associate IP addresses with
name servers. Name servers MAY have multiple IP addresses. An IP
address MAY be associated with multiple name servers.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services to associate social information
with other objects. Social information associations MUST be identified
by type. "Registrant" is an example social information type that
might be associated with an object such as a domain name.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
[4] Some managed objects represent shared resources that might be
referenced by multiple registrars. The protocol MUST provide services
that allow a registrar to associate an existing shared resource object
with other registered objects sponsored by a second registrar. For
example, authority for the example.tld zone (example.tld domain object
managed by registrar X) and authority for the test.tld zone (test.tld
domain object managed by registrar Y) might be delegated to server
ns1.example.tld (managed by registrar X). Registrar X maintains
administrative control over domain object example.tld and server
object ns1.example.tld, and registrar Y maintains administrative
control over domain object test.tld. Registrar Y does not have
administrative control over server object ns1.example.tld.
3.4.4 Object Update
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to update information
associated with registered Internet domain names.
[2] The protocol MUST provide services to update information
associated with registered name servers.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services to update social information
associated with registered human and organizational entities.
[4] The protocol MUST provide services to limit requests to update a
registered object to the registrar that currently sponsors the
registered object.
[5] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly reject
unauthorized attempts to update a registered object.
3.4.5 Object Transfer
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to transfer domain names among
authorized registrars. Name servers registered in a domain being
transferred MUST be transferred along with the domain itself. For
example, name servers "ns1.example.tld" and "ns2.example.tld" MUST be
implicitly transferred when domain "example.tld" is transferred.
[2] The protocol MUST provide services to describe all objects,
including associated objects, that are transferred as a result of an
object transfer.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services to transfer social information
objects among authorized registrars.
[4] Protocol transfer requests MUST be initiated by the registrar who
wishes to become the new administrator of an object.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
[5] The protocol MUST provide services to confirm registrar
authorization to transfer an object.
[6] The protocol MUST provide services that allow the requesting
registrar to cancel a requested object transfer before the request has
been approved or rejected by the original sponsoring registrar.
Requests to cancel the transfer of registered objects MUST be limited
to the registrar that requested transfer of the registered object.
Unauthorized attempts to cancel the transfer of a registered object
MUST be explicitly rejected.
[7] The protocol MUST provide services that allow the original
sponsoring registrar to approve or reject a requested object transfer.
Requests to approve or reject the transfer of registered objects MUST
be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the registered
object. Unauthorized attempts to approve or reject the transfer of a
registered object MUST be explicitly rejected.
[8] The protocol MUST provide services that allow both the original
sponsoring registrar and the potential new registrar to monitor the
status of both pending and completed transfer requests.
[9] Transfer of an object MAY extend the object's registration period.
If an object's registration period will be extended as the result of a
transfer, the new expiration date and time MUST be returned after
successful completion of a transfer request.
[10] Requests to initiate the transfer of a registered object MUST be
available to all authorized registrars.
3.4.6 Object Renewal/Extension
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to renew or extend the validity
period of registered domain names. If applicable, the new expiration
date and time MUST be returned after successful completion of a
request to renew or extend the validity period.
[2] Requests to renew or extend the validity period of a registered
object MUST be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the
registered object. Unauthorized attempts to renew or extend the
validity period of a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected.
3.4.7 Object Deletion
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a domain name from
the registry.
[2] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a name server from
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
the registry.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a social information
object from the registry.
[4] Requests to remove a registered object MUST be limited to the
registrar that currently sponsors the registered object. Unauthorized
attempts to remove a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected.
3.4.8 Object Existence Query
This section describes requirements for a lightweight query mechanism
whose sole purpose is to determine if an object exists in a registry.
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a domain name
exists in the registry. Domain names MUST be searchable by fully
qualified name.
[2] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a name server
exists in the registry. Name servers MUST be searchable by fully
qualified name.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a social
information object exists in the registry. Social information MUST be
searchable by a registry-unique identifier.
[4] A query to determine if an object exists in the registry MUST
return only a positive or negative response so that server software
that responds to this query can be optimized for speed.
[5] Requests to determine the existence of a registered object MUST be
available to all authorized registrars.
3.4.9 Object Information Query
This section describes requirements for a query mechanism whose
purpose is to provide detailed information describing objects that
exist in a registry.
[1] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve information
describing a domain name from the registry. Returned information MUST
include the identifier of the current sponsoring registrar, the
identifier of the registrar that originally registered the domain, the
creation date and time, the expiration date and time (if any), the
date and time of the last successful update (if any), the identifier
of the registrar that performed the last update, the date and time of
last completed transfer (if any), the current status of the domain,
authorization information, identifiers describing social information
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
associated with the domain, and the subordinate name servers
registered in the domain. Authorization information MUST only be
returned to the current sponsoring registrar.
[2] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve information
describing a name server from the registry. Returned information MUST
include the identifier of the current sponsoring registrar, the
identifier of the registrar that originally registered the name
server, the creation date and time, the date and time of the last
successful update (if any), the identifier of the registrar that
performed the last update, the date and time of last completed
transfer (if any), and the IP addresses currently associated with the
name server.
[3] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve social information
from the registry. Returned information MUST include identification
attributes (which MAY include name, address, telephone numbers, and
email address), the identifier of the registrar that originally
registered the information, the creation date and time, the date and
time of the last successful update (if any), the identifier of the
registrar that performed the last update, the date and time of last
completed transfer (if any), and authorization information.
Authorization information MUST only be returned to the current
sponsoring registrar.
[4] The protocol MUST provide services to identify all associated
object references, such as name servers associated with domains
(including delegations and hierarchical relationships) and contacts
associated with domains. This information MUST be visible if the
object associations have an impact on the success or failure of
protocol operations.
[5] Requests to retrieve information describing a registered object
MAY be granted by the registrar that currently sponsors the registered
object. Unauthorized attempts to retrieve information describing a
registered object MUST be explicitly rejected.
3.5 Domain Status Indicators
[1] The protocol MUST provide status indicators that identify the
operational state of a domain name. Indicators MAY be provided to
identify a newly created state (the domain has been registered but has
not yet appeared in a zone), a nominal active state (the domain can be
modified and is published in a zone), an inactive state (the domain
can be modified but is not published in a zone because it has no
authoritative name servers), a hold state (the domain can not be
modified and is not published in a zone), a lock state (the domain can
not be modified and is published in a zone), a pending transfer state,
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
and a pending removal state.
[2] If provided, protocol indicators for hold and lock status MUST
allow independent setting by both registry and registrar.
[3] A domain MAY have multiple statuses at any given time. Some
statuses MAY be mutually exclusive.
3.6 Transaction Completion Status
[1] The protocol MUST provide services that unambiguously note the
success or failure of every transaction. Individual success and error
conditions MUST be noted distinctly.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
4. External Interface Requirements
External interfaces define the interaction points between a system and
entities that communicate with the system. Specific areas of interest
include user interfaces, hardware interfaces, software interfaces, and
communications interfaces.
4.1 User Interfaces
[1] The protocol MUST NOT define any features that introduce user
interface limitations.
4.2 Hardware Interfaces
[1] The protocol MUST NOT define any features that introduce hardware
interface limitations.
4.3 Software Interfaces
[1] The protocol MUST NOT define any features that introduce software
interface limitations.
4.4 Communications Interfaces
[1] Registries, registrars, and registrants interact using a wide
spectrum of communications interfaces built upon multiple protocols,
including transport layer protocols such as TCP and application layer
protocols such as SMTP. The protocol MUST only be run over IETF
approved protocols that feature congestion control, such as TCP and
SCTP.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
5. Performance Requirements
[1] Run-time performance is an absolutely critical aspect of protocol
usability. While performance is very heavily dependent on the hardware
and software architecture that implements a protocol, protocol
features can have a direct impact on the ability of the underlying
architecture to provide optimal performance. The protocol MUST be
usable in both high volume and low volume operating environments.
6. Design Constraints
Protocol designers need to be aware of issues beyond functional and
interface requirements when balancing protocol design decisions. This
section describes additional factors that might have an impact on
protocol design, including standards compliance and hardware
limitations.
6.1 Standards Compliance
[1] The protocol MUST conform to current IETF standards. Standards
for domain and host name syntax, IP address syntax, security, and
transport are particularly relevant. Emerging standards for the
Domain Name System MUST be considered as they approach maturity.
[2] The protocol MUST NOT reinvent services offered by lower layer
protocol standards. For example, the use of a transport that provides
reliability is to be chosen over use of a non-reliable transport with
the protocol itself using retransmission to achieve reliability.
6.2 Hardware Limitations
[1] The protocol MUST NOT define any features that preclude hardware
independence.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
7. Service Attributes
Elements of service beyond functional and interface requirements are
essential factors to consider as part of a protocol design effort.
This section describes several important service elements to be
addressed by protocol designers, including reliability, availability,
scalability, maintainability, extensibility, and security.
7.1 Reliability
[1] Reliability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol
provides a consistent, dependable level of service. Reliability is an
important attribute for a domain name management protocol. An
unreliable protocol increases the risk of data exchange errors, which
at one extreme can have a direct impact on protocol usability and at
the other extreme can introduce discontinuity between registry and
registrar data stores. The protocol MUST include features that
maximize reliability at the application protocol layer. Services
provided by underlying transport, session, and presentation protocols
SHOULD also be considered when addressing application protocol
reliability.
[2] The protocol MUST be run over the most reliable transport option
available in a given environment. The protocol MUST NOT implement a
service that is otherwise available in an applicable standard
transport.
[3] Default protocol actions for when a request or event times out
MUST be well defined.
7.2 Availability
[1] Availability is a measure of the extent to which the services
provided by a protocol are accessible for an intended use.
Availability of an application layer protocol is primarily dependent
on the software and hardware systems that implement the protocol. The
protocol MUST NOT include any features that impinge on the underlying
availability of the software and hardware systems needed to service
the protocol.
7.3 Scalability
[1] Scalability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can
accommodate use growth while preserving acceptable operational
characteristics. The protocol MUST be capable of operating at an
acceptable level as the load on registry and registrar systems
increases.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
7.4 Maintainability
[1] Maintainability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can
be adapted or modified to address unforeseen operational needs or
defects. The protocol SHOULD be developed under the nominal working
group processes of the IETF to provide a well-known mechanism for
ongoing maintenance.
7.5 Extensibility
[1] Extensibility is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can
be adapted for future uses that were not readily evident when the
protocol was originally designed. The protocol SHOULD provide
features that at a minimum allow for the management of new object
types without requiring revisions to the protocol itself.
[2] The requirements described in this document are not intended to
limit the set of objects that might be managed by the protocol. The
protocol MUST include features that allow extension to object types
that are not described in this document.
[3] The protocol MUST provide an optional field within all commands
whose format and use will be controlled by individual registry policy.
7.6 Security
[1] Transactional privacy and integrity services MUST be available at
some protocol layer.
[2] This document describes requirements for basic user identification
and authentication services. A generic protocol MAY include
additional security services to protect against the attacks described
here. A generic protocol MUST depend on other-layered protocols to
provide security services that are not provided in the generic
protocol itself. A generic protocol that relies on security services
from other-layered protocols MUST specify the protocol layers needed
to provide security services.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
8. Other Requirements
Certain aspects of anticipated operational environments have to be
considered when designing a generic registry-registrar protocol.
Areas of concern include database operations, operations, site
adaptation, and data collection.
8.1 Database Requirements
[1] The protocol MUST NOT have any database dependencies. However,
efficient use of database operations and resources has to be
considered as part of the protocol design effort. The protocol SHOULD
provide atomic features that can be efficiently implemented to
minimize database load.
8.2 Operational Requirements
[1] Registry-registrar interactions at the protocol level SHOULD
operate without human intervention. However, intermediate services
that preserve the integrity of the protocol MAY be provided. For
example, an intermediate service that determines if a registrant is
authorized to register a name in a name space can be provided.
[2] The protocol MUST provide services that allow clients and servers
to maintain a consistent understanding of the current date and time to
effectively manage objects with temporal properties.
8.3 Site Adaptation Requirements
[1] Registries and registrars have varying business and operational
requirements. Several factors, including governance standards, local
laws, customs, and business practices all play roles in determining
how registries and registrars are operated. The protocol MUST be
flexible enough to operate in diverse registry-registrar environments.
8.4 Data Collection Requirements
[1] Some of the data exchanged between a registrar and registry might
be considered personal, private, or otherwise sensitive. Disclosure
of such information might be restricted by laws and/or business
practices. The protocol MUST provide services to identify data
collection policies.
[2] Some of the social information exchanged between a registrar and
registry might be required to create, manage, or operate Internet or
DNS infrastructure facilities, such as zone files. Such information
is subject to public disclosure per relevant IETF standards.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
9. Internationalization Requirements
[1] [RFC1035] describes Internet host and domain names using
characters traditionally found in a subset of the 7-bit US-ASCII
character set. More recent standards, such as [RFC2130] and [RFC2277],
describe the need to develop protocols for an international Internet.
These and other standards MUST be considered during the protocol
design process to ensure world-wide usability of a generic registry
registrar protocol.
[2] The protocol MUST allow exchange of data in formats consistent
with current international agreements for the representation of such
objects. In particular, this means that addresses MUST include
country, that telephone numbers MUST start with the international
prefix "+", and that appropriate thought be given to the usability of
information in both local and international contexts. This means that
some elements (like names and addresses) might need to be represented
multiple times, or formatted for different contexts (for instance
English/French in Canada, or Latin/ideographic in Japan).
[3] All date and time values specified in a generic registry-registrar
protocol MUST be expressed in Universal Coordinated Time. Dates and
times MUST include information to represent a four-digit calendar
year, a calendar month, a calendar day, hours, minutes, seconds,
fractional seconds, and the time zone for Universal Coordinated Time.
Calendars apart from the Gregorian calendar MUST NOT be used
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
10. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned several TCP and UDP ports for use within shared
registration systems. The assignments can be identified in two broad
categories: those assigned for use with the CORE Shared Registry
System Protocol (SRSP) and those assigned for use with the NSI
Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP).
The CORE SRSP assignments are as follows:
srssend 362/tcp SRS Send
srssend 362/udp SRS Send
srsp 2682/tcp SRSP
srsp 2682/udp SRSP
The NSI RRP assignments are as follows:
rrp 648/tcp Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP)
rrp 648/udp Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP)
These assignments should be preserved as long as the corresponding
systems are operational. Additional IANA services might be required
to support testing and deployment of protocol implementations.
11. Security Considerations
Security services, including confidentiality, authentication, access
control, integrity, and non-repudiation SHOULD be applied to protect
interactions between registries and registrars as appropriate.
Confidentiality services protect sensitive exchanged information from
inadvertent disclosure. Authentication services confirm the claimed
identity of registries and registrars before engaging in online
transactions. Access control services control access to data and
services based on identity. Integrity services guarantee that
exchanged data has not been altered between the registry and the
registrar. Non-repudiation services provide assurance that the sender
of a transaction can not deny being the source of the transaction, and
that the recipient cannot deny being the receiver of the transaction.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
12. Acknowledgements
This document was originally written as an individual submission
Internet-Draft. The provreg working group later adopted it as a
working group document and provided many invaluable comments and
suggested improvements. The author wishes to acknowledge the efforts
of WG chairs Edward Lewis and Jaap Akkerhuis for their process and
editorial contributions.
Specific comments that helped guide development of this document were
provided by Christopher Ambler, Karl Auerbach, Jorg Bauer, George
Belotsky, Eric Brunner-Williams, Jordyn Buchanan, Randy Bush, Bruce
Campbell, Dan Cohen, Andre Cormier, Kent Crispin, Dave Crocker, Ayesha
Damaraju, Lucio De Re, Mats Dufberg, Peter Eisenhauer, Sheer El-Showk,
Urs Eppenberger, Patrik Faltstrom, Paul George, Patrick Greenwell,
Jarle Greipsland, Olivier Guillard, Alf Hansen, Paul Hoffman, Paul
Kane, Shane Kerr, Elmar Knipp, Mike Lampson, Matt Larson, Ping Lu,
Klaus Malorny, Bill Manning, Michael Mealling, Patrick Mevzek, Peter
Mott, Catherine Murphy, Martin Oldfield, Geva Patz, Elisabeth
Porteneuve, Ross Wm. Rader, Budi Rahardjo, Annie Renard, Scott Rose,
Takeshi Saigoh, Marcos Sanz, Marcel Schneider, J. William Semich,
James Seng, Richard Shockey, Brian Spolarich, William Tan, Stig
Venaas, Herbert Vitzthum, and Rick Wesson.
13. References
Normative References:
[RFC2119] S. Bradner: "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Informative References:
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris: "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND
SPECIFICATION", RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2130] C. Weider et al.: "The Report of the IAB Character Set
Workshop", RFC 2130, April 1997.
[RFC2277] H. Alvestrand: "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
14. Editor's Address
Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Global Registry Services
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166-6503
USA
shollenbeck@verisign.com
A. Revisions From Previous Version
(Note to RFC editor: please remove this section completely before
publication as an RFC.)
-04 to -05: Additional IESG review updates relating to lower layer
protocols.
Added 6.1-[2].
Added a new 7.1-[2] and renumbered the former -[2] to -[3].
Modified 7.6-[2].
Hollenbeck Expires July 15, 2002 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements January 15, 2002
B. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2002. 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 assigns.
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 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 July 15, 2002 [Page 24]
