Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
RFC 8334
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (March 2018) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | James Gould , Wil Tan , Gavin Brown | ||
| Last updated | 2018-03-05 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
ARTART Telechat review
(of
-06)
Ready with Issues
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-06)
Has Issues
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Ulrich Wisser | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2017-07-02 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8334 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Adam Roach | ||
| Send notices to | "Ulrich Wisser" <ulrich@wisser.se> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
RFC 8334
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Gould
Request for Comments: 8334 VeriSign, Inc.
Category: Standards Track W. Tan
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cloud Registry
G. Brown
CentralNic Ltd
March 2018
Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Abstract
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
extension mapping for the provisioning and management of domain name
registrations and applications during the launch of a domain name
registry.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8334.
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
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.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Application Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Validator Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Launch Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Trademark Claims Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Status Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. State Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. Poll Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. Mark Validation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6.1. <launch:codeMark> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.2. <mark:mark> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.3. Digital Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.3.1. <smd:signedMark> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.3.2. <smd:encodedSignedMark> Element . . . . . . . . . 16
3. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1. EPP <check> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.1. Claims Check Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.2. Availability Check Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1.3. Trademark Check Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2. EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3. EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.1. Sunrise Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.2. Claims Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.3.3. General Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.4. Mixed Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.5. Create Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4. EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.5. EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.6. EPP <renew> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.7. EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.1. Launch Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
1. Introduction
This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730]. This EPP mapping
specifies a flexible schema that can be used to implement several
common use cases related to the provisioning and management of domain
name registrations and applications during the launch of a domain
name registry.
It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes as
they begin operation to facilitate allocation of domain names, often
according to special rules. This document uses the term "launch
phase" and the shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period.
Multiple launch phases and multiple models are supported to enable
the launch of a domain name registry. Server policy determines what
is supported and validated. Communication of the server policy is
typically performed using an out-of-band mechanism that is not
specified in this document.
The EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731] is designed for the steady-
state operation of a registry. During a launch period, the model in
place may be different from what is defined in the EPP domain name
mapping [RFC5731]. For example, registries often accept multiple
applications for the same domain name during the "sunrise" launch
phase, referred to as a Launch Application. A Launch Registration
refers to a registration made during a launch phase when the server
uses a "first-come, first-served" model. Even in a "first-come,
first-served" model, additional steps and information might be
required, such as trademark information. In addition, RFC 7848
[RFC7848] defines a registry interface for the Trademark Claims or
"claims" launch phase that includes support for presenting a
Trademark Claims Notice to the registrant. This document proposes an
extension to the domain name mapping in order to provide a uniform
interface for the management of Launch Applications and Launch
Registrations in launch phases.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
XML [W3C.REC-xml11-20060816] 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.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:"
represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and
whitespace in examples are provided only to illustrate element
relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol. The
use of "..." is used as shorthand for elements defined outside this
document.
A Launch Registration is a domain name registration during a launch
phase when the server uses a "first-come, first-served" model. Only
a single registration for a domain name can exist in the server at a
time.
A Launch Application represents the intent to register a domain name
during a launch phase when the server accepts multiple applications
for a domain name, and the server later selects one of the
applications to allocate as a registration. Many Launch Applications
for a domain name can exist in the server at a time.
The XML namespace prefix "launch" is used for the namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0", but implementations MUST NOT
depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser
and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
The XML namespace prefix "smd" is used for the namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0" [RFC7848], but
implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper
namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the
XML documents.
The XML namespace prefix "mark" is used for the namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0" [RFC7848], but implementations MUST
NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML
parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
2. Object Attributes
This extension adds additional elements to the EPP domain name
mapping [RFC5731]. Only those new elements are described here.
2.1. Application Identifier
Servers MAY allow multiple applications, referred to as a Launch
Application, of the same domain name during its launch phase
operations. Upon receiving a valid <domain:create> command to create
a Launch Application, the server MUST create an application object
corresponding to the request, assign an application identifier for
the Launch Application, set the pendingCreate status [RFC5731], and
return the application identifier to the client with the
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
<launch:applicationID> element. In order to facilitate correlation,
all subsequent launch operations on the Launch Application MUST be
qualified by the previously assigned application identifier using the
<launch:applicationID> element.
2.2. Validator Identifier
The Validator Identifier is unique to the server and is the
identifier for a Trademark Validator, which validates marks and has a
repository of validated marks. The OPTIONAL "validatorID" attribute
is used to define the Validator Identifier of the Trademark
Validator. Registries MAY support more than one third-party
Trademark Validator. The unique set of Validator Identifier values
supported by the server is up to server policy. The Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Trademark
Clearinghouse (TMCH) is the default Trademark Validator and is
reserved for the Validator Identifier of "tmch". If the ICANN TMCH
is not used or multiple Trademark Validators are used, the Validator
Identifier MUST be defined using the "validatorID" attribute.
The Validator Identifier MAY be related to one or more issuer
identifiers of the <mark:id> and <smd:id> elements defined in
[RFC7848]. Both the Validator Identifier and the Issuer Identifier
used MUST be unique in the server. If the ICANN TMCH is not used or
multiple Trademark Validators are used, the server MUST define the
list of supported validator identifiers and MUST make this
information available to clients using a mutually acceptable, out-of-
band mechanism.
The Validator Identifier may define a non-Trademark Validator that
supports a form of claims, where claims and a Validator Identifier
can be used for purposes beyond trademarks.
2.3. Launch Phases
The server MAY support multiple launch phases sequentially or
simultaneously. The <launch:phase> element MUST be included by the
client to define the target launch phase of the command. The server
SHOULD validate the phase and MAY validate the sub-phase of the
<launch:phase> element against the active phase and OPTIONAL sub-
phase of the server, and return an EPP error result code of 2306
[RFC5730] if there is a mismatch.
The following launch phase values are defined:
sunrise: The phase during which trademark holders can submit
registrations or applications with trademark information that can
be validated by the server.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
landrush: A post-"sunrise" launch phase when non-trademark holders
are allowed to register domain names with steps taken to address a
large volume of initial registrations.
claims: The phase, as defined in Section 2.3.1, in which a claims
notice must be displayed to a prospective registrant of a domain
name that matches trademarks.
open: A phase that is also referred to as "steady state". Servers
may require additional trademark protection during this phase.
custom: A custom server launch phase that is defined using the
"name" attribute.
For extensibility, the <launch:phase> element includes an OPTIONAL
"name" attribute that can define a sub-phase or the full name of the
phase when the <launch:phase> element has the "custom" value. For
example, the "claims" launch phase could have two sub-phases that
include "landrush" and "open".
Launch phases MAY overlap to support the "claims" launch phase,
defined in Section 2.3.1, and to support a traditional "landrush"
launch phase. The overlap of the "claims" and "landrush" launch
phases SHOULD be handled by setting "claims" as the <launch:phase>
value and setting "landrush" as the sub-phase with the "name"
attribute. For example, the <launch:phase> element should be
<launch:phase name="landrush">claims</launch:phase>.
2.3.1. Trademark Claims Phase
The Trademark Claims Phase is when a claims notice must be displayed
to a prospective registrant of a domain name that matches trademarks.
See [ICANN-TMCH] for additional details of trademark claims handling.
The source of the trademarks is a Trademark Validator, and the source
of the claims notice information is a Claims Notice Information
Service (CNIS), which may be directly linked to a Trademark
Validator. The client interfaces with 1) the server to determine if
a trademark exists for a domain name, 2) a CNIS to get the claims
notice information, and 3) the server to pass the claims notice
acceptance information in a create command. This document supports
the Trademark Claims Phase in two ways, including:
Claims Check Form: Is defined in Section 3.1.1 and is used to
determine whether or not there are any matching trademarks for a
domain name. If there is at least one matching trademark that
exists for the domain name, a claims key is returned. The mapping
of domain names and the claims keys is based on an out-of-band
interface between the server and the Trademark Validator. The
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
CNIS associated with the claims key Validator Identifier
(Section 2.2) MUST accept the claims key as the basis for
retrieving the claims information.
Claims Create Form: Is defined in Section 3.3.2 and is used to pass
the claims notice acceptance information in a create command. The
notice identifier (<launch:noticeID>) format, validation rules,
and server processing is up to the interface between the server
and the Trademark Validator. The CNIS associated with the
Validator Identifier (Section 2.2) MUST generate a notice
identifier compliant with the <launch:noticeID> element.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following shows the Trademark Claims Phase registration flow:
.------------. .--------. .--------. .------.
| Registrant | | Client | | Server | | CNIS |
'------------' '--------' '--------' '------'
| Request Domain | | |
| Registration | | |
|--------------->| Domain Check | |
| |--------------------------->| |
| Domain | Domain Unavailable .------------. |
| Unavailable |<---------------------( Available? ) |
|<---------------| No '------------' |
| | Domain Available | Yes |
| |<---------------------------| |
| | Domain Claims Check | |
| |--------------------------->| |
| | .---------. |
| | Claims Don't Exist / Does \ |
| |<--------------------( Domain have ) |
| | No \ Claims? / |
| | '---------' |
| | Domain Create | | Yes |
| |--------------------------->| | |
| Domain | Domain Registered | | |
| Registered |<---------------------------| | |
|<---------------| | |
| | |
| | Claims Exist with Claims Keys | |
| |<------------------------------' |
| | |
.-----. | | Request Claims Info with Claims Key |
|Abort| | Display |-------------------------------------->|
'-----' | Claims | Return Claims Info |
^ | Notice |<--------------------------------------|
| No |<---------------| |
| .------. Yes | |
'-( Ack? )----------->| Domain Claims Create Form | |
'------' |--------------------------->| |
| Registration | Error .----------------------. |
| Error |<-----------( Validation Successful? ) |
|<---------------| No '----------------------' |
| | | Yes |
| Domain | Domain Registered | |
| Registered |<---------------------------| |
|<---------------| | |
Figure 1
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
2.4. Status Values
A Launch Application or Launch Registration object MAY have a launch
status value. The <launch:status> element is used to convey the
launch status pertaining to the object, beyond what is specified in
the object mapping. A Launch Application or Launch Registration MUST
set the "pendingCreate" status [RFC5731] if a launch status is
supported and is not one of the final statuses ("allocated" and
"rejected").
The following status values are defined using the required "s"
attribute:
pendingValidation: The initial state of a newly created application
or registration object. The application or registration requires
validation, but the validation process has not yet completed.
validated: The application or registration meets relevant registry
rules.
invalid: The application or registration does not validate according
to registry rules. Server policies permitting, it may transition
back into "pendingValidation" for revalidation, after
modifications are made to ostensibly correct attributes that
caused the validation failure.
pendingAllocation: The allocation of the application or registration
is pending based on the results of some out-of-band process (for
example, an auction).
allocated: The object corresponding to the application or
registration has been provisioned. This is a possible end state
of an application or registration object.
rejected: The application or registration object was not
provisioned. This is a possible end state of an application or
registration object.
custom: A custom status that is defined using the "name" attribute.
Each status value MAY be accompanied by a string of human-readable
text that describes the rationale for the status applied to the
object. The OPTIONAL "lang" attribute, as defined in [RFC5646], MAY
be present to identify the language if the negotiated value is
something other than the default value of "en" (English).
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
For extensibility, the <launch:status> element includes an OPTIONAL
"name" attribute that can define a sub-status or the full name of the
status when the status value is "custom". The server SHOULD use one
of the non-"custom" status values.
Status values MAY be skipped. For example, an application or
registration MAY immediately start at the "allocated" status, or an
application or registration MAY skip the "pendingAllocation" status.
If the launch phase does not require validation of a request, an
application or registration MAY immediately skip to
"pendingAllocation".
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
2.4.1. State Transition
The transitions between the states is a matter of server policy.
This diagram defines one possible set of permitted transitions.
| request
|
| +--------------------------+
| | |
v v |
+-------------------+ |
| | |
| pendingValidation +--------------+ |
| | | |
+---------+---------+ | |
| | |
| | |
v v |
+-----------+ +---------+ |
| | | | |
| validated | | invalid +--+
| | | |
+-----+-----+ +----+----+
| |
| |
v |
+-------------------+ |
| | |
| pendingAllocation +-----------+ |
| | | |
+---------+---------+ | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
v v v
+---------+ +--------+
/ \ / \
| allocated | | rejected |
\ / \ /
+---------+ +--------+
Figure 2
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
2.5. Poll Messaging
A Launch Application MUST be handled as an EPP domain name object as
specified in RFC 5731 [RFC5731], with the "pendingCreate" status and
launch status values defined in Section 2.4. A Launch Registration
MAY be handled as an EPP domain name object as specified in RFC 5731
[RFC5731], with the "pendingCreate" status and launch status values
defined in Section 2.4. As a Launch Application or Launch
Registration transitions between the status values defined in
Section 2.4, the server SHOULD insert poll messages, per [RFC5730],
for the applicable intermediate statuses, including the
"pendingValidation", "validated", "pendingAllocation", and "invalid"
statuses, using the <domain:infData> element with the
<launch:infData> extension. The <domain:infData> element MAY contain
non-mandatory information, like contact and name server information.
Also, further extensions that would normally be included in the
response of a <domain:info> command, per [RFC5731], MAY be included.
For the final statuses, including the "allocated" and "rejected"
statuses, the server MUST insert a <domain:panData> poll message, per
[RFC5731], with the <launch:infData> extension.
The following is an example poll message for a Launch Application
that has transitioned to the "pendingAllocation" state.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ count="5" id="12345">
S: <qDate>2013-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Application pendingAllocation.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
S: ...
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:infData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
S: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID>
S: <launch:status s="pendingAllocation"/>
S: </launch:infData>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
The following is an example <domain:panData> poll message for an
"allocated" Launch Application.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ count="5" id="12345">
S: <qDate>2013-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Application successfully allocated.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:panData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name paResult="1">domain.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:paTRID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </domain:paTRID>
S: <domain:paDate>2013-04-04T22:00:00.0Z</domain:paDate>
S: </domain:panData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:infData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
S: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID>
S: <launch:status s="allocated"/>
S: </launch:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <domain:panData> poll message for an
"allocated" Launch Registration.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ count="5" id="12345">
S: <qDate>2013-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Registration successfully allocated.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:panData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name paResult="1">domain.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:paTRID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </domain:paTRID>
S: <domain:paDate>2013-04-04T22:00:00.0Z</domain:paDate>
S: </domain:panData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:infData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
S: <launch:status s="allocated"/>
S: </launch:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
2.6. Mark Validation Models
A server MUST support at least one of the following models for
validating trademark information:
code: Use of a mark code by itself to validate that the mark matches
the domain name. This model is supported using the
<launch:codeMark> element with just the <launch:code> element.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
mark: The mark information is passed without any other validation
element. The server will use some custom form of validation to
validate that the mark information is authentic. This model is
supported using the <launch:codeMark> element with just the
<mark:mark> (Section 2.6.2) element.
code with mark: A code is used along with the mark information by
the server to validate the mark utilizing an external party. The
code represents some form of secret that matches the mark
information passed. This model is supported using the
<launch:codeMark> element that contains both the <launch:code> and
the <mark:mark> (Section 2.6.2) elements.
signed mark: The mark information is digitally signed as described
in the Digital Signature section (Section 2.6.3). The digital
signature can be directly validated by the server using the public
key of the external party that created the signed mark using its
private key. This model is supported using the <smd:signedMark>
(Section 2.6.3.1) and <smd:encodedSignedMark> (Section 2.6.3.2)
elements.
More than one <launch:codeMark>, <smd:signedMark> (Section 2.6.3.1),
or <smd:encodedSignedMark> (Section 2.6.3.2) element MAY be
specified. The maximum number of marks per domain name is up to
server policy.
2.6.1. <launch:codeMark> Element
The <launch:codeMark> element is used by the "code", "mark", and
"code with mark" validation models and has the following child
elements:
<launch:code>: OPTIONAL mark code used to validate the <mark:mark>
(Section 2.6.2) information. The mark code is a mark-specific
secret that the server can verify against a third party. The
OPTIONAL "validatorID" attribute is the Validator Identifier
(Section 2.2) whose value indicates which Trademark Validator the
code originated from, with no default value.
<mark:mark>: OPTIONAL mark information with child elements defined
in the Mark section (Section 2.6.2).
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <launch:codeMark> element with both a
<launch:code> and <mark:mark> (Section 2.6.2) element.
<launch:codeMark>
<launch:code validatorID="sample">
49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</launch:code>
<mark:mark xmlns:mark="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0">
...
</mark:mark>
</launch:codeMark>
2.6.2. <mark:mark> Element
A <mark:mark> element describes an applicant's prior right to a given
domain name that is used with the "mark", "mark with code", and
"signed mark" validation models. The <mark:mark> element is defined
in [RFC7848]. A new mark format can be supported by creating a new
XML schema for the mark that has an element that substitutes for the
<mark:abstractMark> element from [RFC7848].
2.6.3. Digital Signature
Digital signatures MAY be used by the server to validate the mark
information, when using the "signed mark" validation model with the
<smd:signedMark> (Section 2.6.3.1) and <smd:encodedSignedMark>
(Section 2.6.3.2) elements. When using digital signatures, the
server MUST validate the digital signature.
2.6.3.1. <smd:signedMark> Element
The <smd:signedMark> element contains the digitally signed mark
information. The <smd:signedMark> element is defined in [RFC7848].
A new signed mark format can be supported by creating a new XML
schema for the signed mark that has an element that substitutes for
the <smd:abstractSignedMark> element from [RFC7848].
2.6.3.2. <smd:encodedSignedMark> Element
The <smd:encodedSignedMark> element contains an encoded form of the
digitally signed <smd:signedMark> (Section 2.6.3.1) element. The
<smd:encodedSignedMark> element is defined in [RFC7848]. A new
encoded signed mark format can be supported by creating a new XML
schema for the encoded signed mark that has an element that
substitutes for the <smd:encodedSignedMark> element from [RFC7848].
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3. 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 the Launch Phase
Extension.
This mapping is designed to be flexible, requiring only a minimum set
of required elements.
While it is meant to serve several use cases, it does not prescribe
any interpretation by the client or server. Such processing is
typically highly policy dependent and therefore specific to
implementations.
Operations on application objects are done via one or more of the
existing EPP commands defined in the EPP domain name mapping
[RFC5731]. Registries MAY choose to support a subset of the
operations.
3.1. EPP <check> Command
There are three forms of the extension to the EPP <check> command:
the Claims Check Form (Section 3.1.1), the Availability Check Form
(Section 3.1.2), and the Trademark Check Form (Section 3.1.3). The
<launch:check> element "type" attribute defines the form, with the
value of "claims" for the Claims Check Form (Section 3.1.1), "avail"
for the Availability Check Form (Section 3.1.2), and "trademark" for
the Trademark Check Form (Section 3.1.3). The default value of the
"type" attribute is "claims". The forms supported by the server is
determined by server policy. The server MUST return an EPP error
result code of 2307 [RFC5730] if it receives a check form that is not
supported.
3.1.1. Claims Check Form
The Claims Check Form defines a new command called the Claims Check
Command that is used to determine whether or not there are any
matching trademarks, in the specified launch phase, for each domain
name passed in the command, that require the use of the "Claims
Create Form" on a Domain Create Command. The availability check
information defined in the EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731] MUST NOT
be returned for the Claims Check Command. This form is the default
form and MAY be explicitly identified by setting the <launch:check>
"type" attribute to "claims".
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
Instead of returning whether the domain name is available, the Claims
Check Command will return whether or not at least one matching
trademark exists for the domain name, which requires the use of the
"Claims Create Form" on a Domain Create Command. If there is at
least one matching trademark that exists for the domain name, a
<launch:claimKey> element is returned. The client MAY then use the
value of the <launch:claimKey> element to obtain information needed
to generate the Trademark Claims Notice from the Trademark Validator
based on the Validator Identifier (Section 2.2). The unique notice
identifier of the Trademark Claims Notice MUST be passed in the
<launch:noticeID> element of the extension to the Create Command
(Section 3.3).
The <domain:name> elements in the EPP <check> command of EPP domain
name mapping [RFC5731] define the domain names to check for matching
trademarks. The <launch:check> element contains the following child
element:
<launch:phase>: Contains the value of the active launch phase of the
server. The server SHOULD validate the value according to
Section 2.3.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example Claims Check Command using the <check>
domain command and the <launch:check> extension with the "type"
explicitly set to "claims", to determine if "domain1.example",
"domain2.example", and "domain3.example" require claims notices
during the "claims" launch phase:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <check>
C: <domain:check
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain1.example</domain:name>
C: <domain:name>domain2.example</domain:name>
C: <domain:name>domain3.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:check>
C: </check>
C: <extension>
C: <launch:check
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
C: type="claims">
C: <launch:phase>claims</launch:phase>
C: </launch:check>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
If the <check> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
<response> MUST contain an <extension> <launch:chkData> element that
identifies the launch namespace. The <launch:chkData> element
contains the following child elements:
<launch:phase>: The phase that mirrors the <launch:phase> element
included in the <launch:check>.
<launch:cd>: One or more <launch:cd> elements that contain the
following child elements:
<launch:name>: Contains the fully qualified name of the queried
domain name. This element MUST contain an "exists" attribute
whose value indicates if a matching trademark exists for the
domain name that requires the use of the "Claims Create Form"
on a Domain Create Command. A value of "1" (or "true") means
that a matching trademark does exist and that the "Claims
Create Form" is required on a Domain Create Command. A value
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
of "0" (or "false") means that a matching trademark does not
exist or that the "Claims Create Form" is NOT required on a
Domain Create Command.
<launch:claimKey>: Zero or more OPTIONAL claim keys that MAY be
passed to a third-party Trademark Validator such as the ICANN
TMCH for querying the information needed to generate a
Trademark Claims Notice. The <launch:claimKey> is used as
the key for the query in place of the domain name to securely
query the service without using a well-known value like a
domain name. The OPTIONAL "validatorID" attribute is the
Validator Identifier (Section 2.2) whose value indicates
which Trademark Validator to query for the claims notice
information, with the default being the ICANN TMCH. The
"validatorID" attribute MAY reference a non-trademark claims
clearinghouse identifier to support other forms of claims
notices.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example Claims Check response when a claims
notice for the "claims" launch phase is not required for the domain
name domain1.example, is required for the domain name domain2.example
in the "tmch", and is required for the domain name domain3.example in
the "tmch" and "custom-tmch":
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:chkData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:phase>claims</launch:phase>
S: <launch:cd>
S: <launch:name exists="0">domain1.example</launch:name>
S: </launch:cd>
S: <launch:cd>
S: <launch:name exists="1">domain2.example</launch:name>
S: <launch:claimKey validatorID="tmch">
S: 2013041500/2/6/9/rJ1NrDO92vDsAzf7EQzgjX4R0000000001
S: </launch:claimKey>
S: </launch:cd>
S: <launch:cd>
S: <launch:name exists="1">domain3.example</launch:name>
S: <launch:claimKey validatorID="tmch">
S: 2013041500/2/6/9/rJ1NrDO92vDsAzf7EQzgjX4R0000000001
S: </launch:claimKey>
S: <launch:claimKey validatorID="custom-tmch">
S: 20140423200/1/2/3/rJ1Nr2vDsAzasdff7EasdfgjX4R000000002
S: </launch:claimKey>
S: </launch:cd>
S: </launch:chkData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.1.2. Availability Check Form
The Availability Check Form defines additional elements to extend the
EPP <check> command described in the EPP domain name mapping
[RFC5731]. No additional elements are defined for the EPP <check>
response. This form MUST be identified by setting the <launch:check>
"type" attribute to "avail".
The EPP <check> command is used to determine if an object can be
provisioned within a repository. Domain names may be made available
only in unique launch phases, whilst remaining unavailable for
concurrent launch phases. In addition to the elements expressed in
the <domain:check>, the command is extended with the <launch:check>
element that contains the following child element:
<launch:phase>: The launch phase to which domain name availability
should be determined. The server SHOULD validate the value and
return an EPP error result code of 2306 [RFC5730] if it is
invalid.
The following is an example Availability Check Form Command using the
<check> domain command and the <launch:check> extension with the
"type" set to "avail", to determine the availability of two domain
names in the "idn-release" custom launch phase:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <check>
C: <domain:check
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain1.example</domain:name>
C: <domain:name>domain2.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:check>
C: </check>
C: <extension>
C: <launch:check
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
C: type="avail">
C: <launch:phase name="idn-release">custom</launch:phase>
C: </launch:check>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The Availability Check Form does not define any extension to the
response of a <check> domain command. After processing the command,
the server replies with a standard EPP response as defined in the EPP
domain name mapping [RFC5731].
3.1.3. Trademark Check Form
The Trademark Check Form defines a new command called the Trademark
Check Command that is used to determine whether or not there are any
matching trademarks for each domain name passed in the command,
independent of the active launch phase of the server and whether the
"Claims Create Form" is required on a Domain Create Command. The
availability check information defined in the EPP domain name mapping
[RFC5731] MUST NOT be returned for the Trademark Check Command. This
form MUST be identified by setting the <launch:check> "type"
attribute to "trademark".
Instead of returning whether the domain name is available, the
Trademark Check Command will return whether or not at least one
matching trademark exists for the domain name. If there is at least
one matching trademark that exists for the domain name, a
<launch:claimKey> element is returned. The client MAY then use the
value of the <launch:claimKey> element to obtain Trademark Claims
Notice information from the Trademark Validator based on the
Validator Identifier (Section 2.2).
The <domain:name> elements in the EPP <check> command of EPP domain
name mapping [RFC5731] define the domain names to check for matching
trademarks. The <launch:check> element does not contain any child
elements with the "Trademark Check Form":
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example Trademark Check Command using the <check>
domain command and the <launch:check> extension with the "type" set
to "trademark", to determine if "domain1.example", "domain2.example",
and "domain3.example" have any matching trademarks:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <check>
C: <domain:check
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain1.example</domain:name>
C: <domain:name>domain2.example</domain:name>
C: <domain:name>domain3.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:check>
C: </check>
C: <extension>
C: <launch:check
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
C: type="trademark"/>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
If the <check> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
<response> MUST contain an <extension> <launch:chkData> element that
identifies the launch namespace. The <launch:chkData> element
contains the following child elements:
<launch:cd>: One or more <launch:cd> elements that contain the
following child elements:
<launch:name>: Contains the fully qualified name of the queried
domain name. This element MUST contain an "exists" attribute
whose value indicates if a matching trademark exists for the
domain name. A value of "1" (or "true") means that a
matching trademark does exist. A value of "0" (or "false")
means that a matching trademark does not exist.
<launch:claimKey>: Zero or more OPTIONAL claim keys that MAY be
passed to a third-party Trademark Validator such as the ICANN
TMCH for querying the information needed to generate a
Trademark Claims Notice. The <launch:claimKey> is used as
the key for the query in place of the domain name to securely
query the service without using a well-known value like a
domain name. The OPTIONAL "validatorID" attribute is the
Validator Identifier (Section 2.2) whose value indicates
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
which Trademark Validator to query for the claims notice
information, with the default being the ICANN TMCH. The
"validatorID" attribute MAY reference a non-trademark claims
clearinghouse identifier to support other forms of claims
notices.
The following is an example Trademark Check response for the "claims"
launch phase when no matching trademarks are found for the domain
name domain1.example, matching trademarks are found for the domain
name domain2.example in the "tmch", and matching trademarks are found
for domain name domain3.example in the "tmch" and "custom-tmch":
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:chkData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:cd>
S: <launch:name exists="0">domain1.example</launch:name>
S: </launch:cd>
S: <launch:cd>
S: <launch:name exists="1">domain2.example</launch:name>
S: <launch:claimKey validatorID="tmch">
S: 2013041500/2/6/9/rJ1NrDO92vDsAzf7EQzgjX4R0000000001
S: </launch:claimKey>
S: </launch:cd>
S: <launch:cd>
S: <launch:name exists="1">domain3.example</launch:name>
S: <launch:claimKey validatorID="tmch">
S: 2013041500/2/6/9/rJ1NrDO92vDsAzf7EQzgjX4R0000000001
S: </launch:claimKey>
S: <launch:claimKey validatorID="custom-tmch">
S: 20140423200/1/2/3/rJ1Nr2vDsAzasdff7EasdfgjX4R000000002
S: </launch:claimKey>
S: </launch:cd>
S: </launch:chkData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.2. EPP <info> Command
This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <info>
command and response to be used in conjunction with the EPP domain
name mapping [RFC5731].
The EPP <info> command is used to retrieve information for a Launch
Registration or Launch Application. The Application Identifier
(Section 2.1) returned in the <launch:creData> element of the create
response (Section 3.3) can be used for retrieving information for a
Launch Application. A <launch:info> element is sent along with the
regular <info> domain command. The <launch:info> element includes an
OPTIONAL "includeMark" boolean attribute, with a default value of
"false", to indicate whether or not to include the mark in the
response. The <launch:info> element contains the following child
elements:
<launch:phase>: The phase during which the application or
registration was submitted or is associated with. Server policy
defines the phases that are supported. The server SHOULD
validate the value and return an EPP error result code of 2306
[RFC5730] if it is invalid.
<launch:applicationID>: OPTIONAL application identifier of the
Launch Application.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <info> domain command with the
<launch:info> extension to retrieve information for the sunrise
application for domain.example and application identifier "abc123":
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <info>
C: <domain:info
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:info>
C: </info>
C: <extension>
C: <launch:info
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
C: includeMark="true">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID>
C: </launch:info>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
The following is an example <info> domain command with the
<launch:info> extension to retrieve information for the sunrise
registration for domain.example:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <info>
C: <domain:info
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:info>
C: </info>
C: <extension>
C: <launch:info
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: </launch:info>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
If the query was successful, the server replies with a
<launch:infData> element along with the regular EPP <resData>. The
<launch:infData> contains the following child elements:
<launch:phase>: The phase during which the application was submitted
or is associated with that matches the associated <info> command
<launch:phase>.
<launch:applicationID>: OPTIONAL Application Identifier of the
Launch Application.
<launch:status>: OPTIONAL status of the Launch Application using one
of the supported status values (Section 2.4).
<mark:mark>: Zero or more <mark:mark> (Section 2.6.2) elements only
if the "includeMark" attribute is "true" in the command.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <info> domain response using the
<launch:infData> extension with the mark information:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
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>domain.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="pendingCreate"/>
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>2012-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:authInfo>
S: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:infData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
S: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID>
S: <launch:status s="pendingValidation"/>
S: <mark:mark
S: xmlns:mark="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0">
S: ...
S: </mark:mark>
S: </launch:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.3. EPP <create> Command
There are four forms of the extension to the EPP <create> command
that include the Sunrise Create Form (Section 3.3.1), the Claims
Create Form (Section 3.3.2), the General Create Form (Section 3.3.3),
and the Mixed Create Form (Section 3.3.4). The form used is
dependent on the supported launch phases (Section 2.3) as defined
below.
sunrise: The EPP <create> command with the "sunrise" launch phase is
used to submit a registration with trademark information that can
be verified by the server with the <domain:name> value. The
Sunrise Create Form (Section 3.3.1) is used for the "sunrise"
launch phase.
landrush: The EPP <create> command with the "landrush" launch phase
MAY use the General Create Form (Section 3.3.3) to explicitly
specify the phase and optionally define the expected type of
object to create.
claims: The EPP <create> command with the "claims" launch phase is
used to pass the information associated with the presentation and
acceptance of the claims notice. The Claims Create Form
(Section 3.3.2) is used, and the General Create Form
(Section 3.3.3) MAY be used for the "claims" launch phase.
open: The EPP <create> command with the "open" launch phase is
undefined, but the form supported is up to server policy. The
Claims Create Form (Section 3.3.2) MAY be used to pass the
information associated with the presentation and acceptance of the
claims notice if required for the domain name.
custom: The EPP <create> command with the "custom" launch phase is
undefined, but the form supported is up to server policy.
3.3.1. Sunrise Create Form
The Sunrise Create Form of the extension to the EPP domain name
mapping [RFC5731] includes the verifiable trademark information that
the server uses to match against the domain name to authorize the
domain create. A server MUST support one of four models in Mark
Validation Models (Section 2.6) to verify the trademark information
passed by the client.
A <launch:create> element is sent along with the regular <create>
domain command. The <launch:create> element has an OPTIONAL "type"
attribute that defines the expected type of object ("application" or
"registration") to create. The server SHOULD validate the "type"
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
attribute, when passed, against the type of object that will be
created, and return an EPP error result code of 2306 [RFC5730] if the
type is incorrect. The <launch:create> element contains the
following child elements:
<launch:phase>: The identifier for the launch phase. The server
SHOULD validate the value according to Section 2.3.
<launch:codeMark> or <smd:signedMark> or <smd:encodedSignedMark>:
<launch:codeMark>: Zero or more <launch:codeMark> elements. The
<launch:codeMark> child elements are defined in
"<launch:codeMark> Element" (Section 2.6.1).
<smd:signedMark>: Zero or more <smd:signedMark> elements. The
<smd:signedMark> child elements are defined in
"<smd:signedMark> Element" (Section 2.6.3.1).
<smd:encodedSignedMark>: Zero or more <smd:encodedSignedMark>
elements. The <smd:encodedSignedMark> child elements are
defined in "<smd:encodedSignedMark> Element"
(Section 2.6.3.2).
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension, following the "code" validation model,
with multiple sunrise codes:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <launch:codeMark>
C: <launch:code validatorID="sample1">
C: 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</launch:code>
C: </launch:codeMark>
C: <launch:codeMark>
C: <launch:code>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AD</launch:code>
C: </launch:codeMark>
C: <launch:codeMark>
C: <launch:code validatorID="sample2">
C: 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AE</launch:code>
C: </launch:codeMark>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension, following the "mark" validation model,
with the mark information:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domainone.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <launch:codeMark>
C: <mark:mark
C: xmlns:mark="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0">
C: ...
C: </mark:mark>
C: </launch:codeMark>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension, following the "code with mark" validation
model, with the code and mark information:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <launch:codeMark>
C: <launch:code validatorID="sample">
C: 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</launch:code>
C: <mark:mark
C: xmlns:mark="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0">
C: ...
C: </mark:mark>
C: </launch:codeMark>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension, following the "signed mark" validation
model, with the signed mark information for a sunrise application:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domainone.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
C: type="application">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <smd:signedMark id="signedMark"
C: xmlns:smd="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0">
C: ...
C: </smd:signedMark>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension, following the "signed mark" validation
model, with the base64-encoded signed mark information:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domainone.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <smd:encodedSignedMark
C: xmlns:smd="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0">
C: ...
C: </smd:encodedSignedMark>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
3.3.2. Claims Create Form
The Claims Create Form of the extension to the EPP domain name
mapping [RFC5731] includes the information related to the
registrant's acceptance of the claims notice.
A <launch:create> element is sent along with the regular <create>
domain command. The <launch:create> element has an OPTIONAL "type"
attribute that defines the expected type of object ("application" or
"registration") to create. The server SHOULD validate the "type"
attribute, when passed, against the type of object that will be
created, and return an EPP error result code of 2306 [RFC5730] if the
type is incorrect. The <launch:create> element contains the
following child elements:
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
<launch:phase>: Contains the value of the active launch phase of the
server. The server SHOULD validate the value according to
Section 2.3.
<launch:notice>: One or more <launch:notice> elements that contain
the following child elements:
<launch:noticeID>: Unique notice identifier for the claims
notice. The <launch:noticeID> element has an OPTIONAL
"validatorID" attribute that is used to define the Validator
Identifier (Section 2.2); it's value indicates which
Trademark Validator is the source of the claims notice, with
the default being the ICANN TMCH.
<launch:notAfter>: Expiry of the claims notice.
<launch:acceptedDate>: Contains the date and time that the
claims notice was accepted.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension with the <launch:notice> information for
the "tmch" and the "custom-tmch" validators, for the "claims" launch
phase:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>claims</launch:phase>
C: <launch:notice>
C: <launch:noticeID validatorID="tmch">
C: 370d0b7c9223372036854775807</launch:noticeID>
C: <launch:notAfter>2014-06-19T10:00:00.0Z
C: </launch:notAfter>
C: <launch:acceptedDate>2014-06-19T09:00:00.0Z
C: </launch:acceptedDate>
C: </launch:notice>
C: <launch:notice>
C: <launch:noticeID validatorID="custom-tmch">
C: 470d0b7c9223654313275808</launch:noticeID>
C: <launch:notAfter>2014-06-19T10:00:00.0Z
C: </launch:notAfter>
C: <launch:acceptedDate>2014-06-19T09:00:30.0Z
C: </launch:acceptedDate>
C: </launch:notice>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.3.3. General Create Form
The General Create Form of the extension to the EPP domain name
mapping [RFC5731] includes the launch phase and optionally the object
type to create. The OPTIONAL "type" attribute defines the expected
type of object ("application" or "registration") to create. The
server SHOULD validate the "type" attribute, when passed, against the
type of object that will be created, and return an EPP error result
code of 2306 [RFC5730] if the type is incorrect.
A <launch:create> element is sent along with the regular <create>
domain command. The <launch:create> element contains the following
child element:
<launch:phase>: Contains the value of the active launch phase of the
server. The server SHOULD validate the value according to
Section 2.3.
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension for a "landrush" launch phase application:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
C: type="application">
C: <launch:phase>landrush</launch:phase>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.3.4. Mixed Create Form
The Mixed Create Form supports a mix of the create forms where, for
example, the Sunrise Create Form (Section 3.3.1) and the Claims
Create Form (Section 3.3.2) MAY be supported in a single command by
including both the verified trademark information and the information
related to the registrant's acceptance of the claims notice. The
server MAY support the Mixed Create Form. The "custom" launch phase
SHOULD be used when using the Mixed Create Form.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <create> domain command using the
<launch:create> extension, with a mix of the Sunrise Create Form
(Section 3.3.1) and the Claims Create Form (Section 3.3.2), including
both a mark and a notice:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <domain:create
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domainone.example</domain:name>
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: <launch:create
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
C: type="application">
C: <launch:phase name="non-tmch-sunrise">custom</launch:phase>
C: <launch:codeMark>
C: <mark:mark
C: xmlns:mark="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0">
C: ...
C: </mark:mark>
C: </launch:codeMark>
C: <launch:notice>
C: <launch:noticeID validatorID="tmch">
C: 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC
C: </launch:noticeID>
C: <launch:notAfter>2012-06-19T10:00:10.0Z
C: </launch:notAfter>
C: <launch:acceptedDate>2012-06-19T09:01:30.0Z
C: </launch:acceptedDate>
C: </launch:notice>
C: </launch:create>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.3.5. Create Response
If the create was successful, the server MAY add a <launch:creData>
element to the regular EPP <resData> to indicate that the server
generated an Application Identifier (Section 2.1), when multiple
applications of a given domain name are supported; otherwise, no
extension is included with the regular EPP <resData>. The
<launch:creData> element contains the following child elements:
<launch:phase>: The phase of the application that mirrors the
<launch:phase> element included in the <launch:create>.
<launch:applicationID>: The application identifier of the
application.
The following is an example response when multiple overlapping
applications are supported by the server:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1001">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; action pending</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:creData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:crDate>2010-08-10T15:38:26.623854Z</domain:crDate>
S: </domain:creData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:creData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
S: <launch:applicationID>2393-9323-E08C-03B1
S: </launch:applicationID>
S: </launch:creData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.4. EPP <update> Command
This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <update>
command to be used in conjunction with the domain name mapping.
When an EPP <update> command with the extension is sent to a server
that does not support Launch Applications, it will fail. A server
that does not support Launch Applications during its launch phase
MUST return an EPP error result code of 2102 [RFC5730] when receiving
an EPP <update> command with the extension.
Registry policies permitting, clients may update an application
object by submitting an EPP <update> command along with a
<launch:update> element to indicate the application object to be
updated. The <launch:update> element contains the following child
elements:
<launch:phase>: The phase during which the application was submitted
or is associated with. The server SHOULD validate the value and
return an EPP error result code of 2306 [RFC5730] if it is
invalid.
<launch:applicationID>: The application identifier for which the
client wishes to update.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
The following is an example <update> domain command with the
<launch:update> extension to add and remove a name server of a
sunrise application with the application identifier "abc123":
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <update>
C: <domain:update
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
C: <domain:add>
C: <domain:ns>
C: <domain:hostObj>ns2.domain.example</domain:hostObj>
C: </domain:ns>
C: </domain:add>
C: <domain:rem>
C: <domain:ns>
C: <domain:hostObj>ns1.domain.example</domain:hostObj>
C: </domain:ns>
C: </domain:rem>
C: </domain:update>
C: </update>
C: <extension>
C: <launch:update
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID>
C: </launch:update>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
This extension does not define any extension to the response of an
<update> domain command. After processing the command, the server
replies with a standard EPP response as defined in the EPP domain
name mapping [RFC5731].
3.5. EPP <delete> Command
This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <delete>
command to be used in conjunction with the domain name mapping.
A client MUST NOT pass the extension on an EPP <delete> command to a
server that does not support Launch Applications. A server that does
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
not support Launch Applications during its launch phase MUST return
an EPP error result code of 2102 [RFC5730] when receiving an EPP
<delete> command with the extension.
Registry policies permitting, clients MAY withdraw an application by
submitting an EPP <delete> command along with a <launch:delete>
element to indicate the application object to be deleted. The
<launch:delete> element contains the following child elements:
<launch:phase>: The phase during which the application was submitted
or is associated with. The server SHOULD validate the value and
return an EPP error result code of 2306 [RFC5730] if it is
invalid.
<launch:applicationID>: The application identifier for which the
client wishes to delete.
The following is an example <delete> domain command with the
<launch:delete> extension:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <delete>
C: <domain:delete
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:delete>
C: </delete>
C: <extension>
C: <launch:delete
C: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
C: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
C: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID>
C: </launch:delete>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
This extension does not define any extension to the response of a
<delete> domain command. After processing the command, the server
replies with a standard EPP response as defined in the EPP domain
name mapping [RFC5731].
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
3.6. EPP <renew> Command
This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <renew>
command or response described in the EPP domain name mapping
[RFC5731].
3.7. EPP <transfer> Command
This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <transfer>
command or response described in the EPP domain name mapping
[RFC5731].
4. Formal Syntax
The EPP Launch Phase Mapping schema is presented in Section 4.1.
The formal syntax presented 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.
4.1. Launch Schema
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
o Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
o Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
o Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"
xmlns:eppcom="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"
xmlns:mark="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0"
xmlns:smd="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<!-- Import common element types -->
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"/>
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0"/>
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0"/>
<annotation>
<documentation>
Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
domain name
extension schema
for the launch phase processing.
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- Child elements found in EPP commands -->
<element
name="check"
type="launch:checkType"/>
<element
name="info"
type="launch:infoType"/>
<element
name="create"
type="launch:createType"/>
<element
name="update"
type="launch:idContainerType"/>
<element
name="delete"
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
type="launch:idContainerType"/>
<!-- Common container of id (identifier) element -->
<complexType name="idContainerType">
<sequence>
<element
name="phase"
type="launch:phaseType"/>
<element
name="applicationID"
type="launch:applicationIDType"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!-- Definition for application identifier -->
<simpleType name="applicationIDType">
<restriction base="token"/>
</simpleType>
<!-- Definition for launch phase. Name is an
optional attribute used to extend the phase type.
For example, when using the phase type value
of "custom", the "name" can be used to specify the
custom phase. -->
<complexType name="phaseType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="launch:phaseTypeValue">
<attribute
name="name"
type="token"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
<!-- Enumeration of launch phase values -->
<simpleType name="phaseTypeValue">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="sunrise"/>
<enumeration value="landrush"/>
<enumeration value="claims"/>
<enumeration value="open"/>
<enumeration value="custom"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Definition for the sunrise code -->
<simpleType name="codeValue">
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<complexType name="codeType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="launch:codeValue">
<attribute
name="validatorID"
type="launch:validatorIDType"
use="optional"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
<!-- Definition for the notice identifier -->
<simpleType name="noticeIDValue">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<complexType name="noticeIDType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="launch:noticeIDValue">
<attribute
name="validatorID"
type="launch:validatorIDType"
use="optional"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
<!-- Definition for the validator identifier -->
<simpleType name="validatorIDType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Possible status values for sunrise application -->
<simpleType name="statusValueType">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="pendingValidation"/>
<enumeration value="validated"/>
<enumeration value="invalid"/>
<enumeration value="pendingAllocation"/>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
<enumeration value="allocated"/>
<enumeration value="rejected"/>
<enumeration value="custom"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Status type definition -->
<complexType name="statusType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="normalizedString">
<attribute
name="s"
type="launch:statusValueType"
use="required"/>
<attribute
name="lang"
type="language"
default="en"/>
<attribute
name="name"
type="token"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
<!-- codeMark Type that contains an optional
code with mark information -->
<complexType name="codeMarkType">
<sequence>
<element
name="code"
type="launch:codeType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element
ref="mark:abstractMark"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!-- Child elements for the create command -->
<complexType name="createType">
<sequence>
<element
name="phase"
type="launch:phaseType"/>
<choice minOccurs="0">
<element
name="codeMark"
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
type="launch:codeMarkType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element
ref="smd:abstractSignedMark"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element
ref="smd:encodedSignedMark"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</choice>
<element
name="notice"
type="launch:createNoticeType"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
<attribute
name="type"
type="launch:objectType"/>
</complexType>
<!-- Type of launch object -->
<simpleType name="objectType">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="application"/>
<enumeration value="registration"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Child elements of the create notice element -->
<complexType name="createNoticeType">
<sequence>
<element
name="noticeID"
type="launch:noticeIDType"/>
<element
name="notAfter"
type="dateTime"/>
<element
name="acceptedDate"
type="dateTime"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!-- Child elements of check (Claims Check Command) -->
<complexType name="checkType">
<sequence>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
<element
name="phase"
type="launch:phaseType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
<attribute
name="type"
type="launch:checkFormType"
default="claims"/>
</complexType>
<!-- Type of check form (Claims Check or Availability Check) -->
<simpleType name="checkFormType">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="claims"/>
<enumeration value="avail"/>
<enumeration value="trademark"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Child elements of info command -->
<complexType name="infoType">
<sequence>
<element
name="phase"
type="launch:phaseType"/>
<element
name="applicationID"
type="launch:applicationIDType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
<attribute
name="includeMark"
type="boolean"
default="false"/>
</complexType>
<!-- Child response elements -->
<element
name="chkData"
type="launch:chkDataType"/>
<element
name="creData"
type="launch:idContainerType"/>
<element
name="infData"
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
type="launch:infDataType"/>
<!-- <check> response elements -->
<complexType name="chkDataType">
<sequence>
<element
name="phase"
type="launch:phaseType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element
name="cd"
type="launch:cdType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="cdType">
<sequence>
<element
name="name"
type="launch:cdNameType"/>
<element
name="claimKey"
type="launch:claimKeyType"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="cdNameType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="eppcom:labelType">
<attribute
name="exists"
type="boolean"
use="required"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
<complexType name="claimKeyType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="token">
<attribute
name="validatorID"
type="launch:validatorIDType"
use="optional"/>
</extension>
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
<!-- <info> response elements -->
<complexType name="infDataType">
<sequence>
<element
name="phase"
type="launch:phaseType"/>
<element
name="applicationID"
type="launch:applicationIDType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element
name="status"
type="launch:statusType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element
ref="mark:abstractMark"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
</schema>
END
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. XML Namespace
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].
IANA has registered the launch namespace as follows:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
IANA has registered the launch XML schema as follows:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:launch-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
5.2. EPP Extension Registry
IANA has registered the EPP extension described in this document in
the "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
registry described in [RFC7451]. The details of the registration are
as follows:
Name of Extension: "Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
Document Status: Standards Track
Reference: RFC 8334
Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
6. 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.
Updates to, and deletion of, an application object MUST be restricted
to clients authorized to perform the said operation on the object.
Information contained within an application, or even the mere fact
that an application exists, may be confidential. Any attempt to
operate on an application object by an unauthorized client MUST be
rejected with an EPP 2201 (authorization error) return code. Server
policy may allow an <info> operation with filtered output by clients
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
other than the sponsoring client, in which case the <domain:infData>
and <launch:infData> responses SHOULD be filtered to include only
fields that are publicly accessible.
7. References
7.1. 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>.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[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>.
[RFC7848] Lozano, G., "Mark and Signed Mark Objects Mapping",
RFC 7848, DOI 10.17487/RFC7848, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7848>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[W3C.REC-xml11-20060816]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E.,
Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language
(XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xml11-20060816, August 2006,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816>.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
7.2. Informative References
[ICANN-TMCH]
Lozano, G., "ICANN TMCH functional specifications", Work
in Progress, draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec-03, July
2017.
[RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451,
February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of the leading
participants of the Community TMCH Model that led to many of the
changes to this document, which include Chris Wright, Jeff Neuman,
Jeff Eckhaus, and Will Shorter.
Special suggestions that have been incorporated into this document
were provided by Harald Alvestrand, Ben Campbell, Spencer Dawkins,
Jothan Frakes, Keith Gaughan, Seth Goldman, Scott Hollenbeck, Michael
Holloway, Jan Jansen, Rubens Kuhl, Mirja Kuehlewind, Warren Kumari,
Ben Levac, Gustavo Lozano, Klaus Malorny, Alexander Mayrhofer, Alexey
Melnikov, Patrick Mevzek, James Mitchell, Francisco Obispo, Mike
O'Connell, Eric Rescorla, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer, Sabrina Tanamal,
Trung Tran, Ulrich Wisser, and Sharon Wodjenski.
Some of the description of the Trademark Claims Phase was based on
the work done by Gustavo Lozano in the ICANN TMCH functional
specifications.
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 8334 Launch Phase Mapping for EPP March 2018
Authors' Addresses
James Gould
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: jgould@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisign.com
Wil Tan
Cloud Registry
Suite 32 Seabridge House
377 Kent St
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia
Phone: +61 414 710899
Email: wil@cloudregistry.net
URI: http://www.cloudregistry.net
Gavin Brown
CentralNic Ltd
35-39 Mooregate
London, England EC2R 6AR
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 20 33 88 0600
Email: gavin.brown@centralnic.com
URI: https://www.centralnic.com
Gould, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]