Allocation Token Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
RFC 8495
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2018; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | James Gould , Kal Feher | ||
| Last updated | 2018-11-27 | ||
| Replaces | draft-gould-allocation-token | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Patrick Mevzek | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2018-06-08) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8495 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Adam Roach | ||
| Send notices to | Patrick Mevzek <patrick+ietf@deepcore.org> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Gould
Request for Comments: 8495 VeriSign, Inc.
Category: Standards Track K. Feher
ISSN: 2070-1721 Neustar
November 2018
Allocation Token Extension
for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Abstract
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
extension for including an Allocation Token in "query" and
"transform" commands. The Allocation Token is used as a credential
that authorizes a client to request the allocation of a specific
object from the server using one of the EPP transform commands,
including "create" and "transfer".
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/rfc8495.
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 & Feher Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Allocation Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. EPP <check> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3. EPP <transfer> Query Command . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1. EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3. EPP <renew> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.4. EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.5. EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Allocation Token Extension Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730]. This mapping,
which is an extension to EPP object mappings similar to the EPP
domain name mapping [RFC5731], supports passing an Allocation Token
as a credential that authorizes a client to request the allocation of
a specific object from the server using one of the EPP transform
commands, including "create" and "transfer".
Allocation is when a server assigns the sponsoring client of an
object based on the use of an Allocation Token credential. Examples
include allocating a registration based on a pre-eligibility
Allocation Token, allocating a premium domain name registration based
on an auction Allocation Token, allocating a registration based on a
founders Allocation Token, and allocating an existing domain name
held by the server or by a different sponsoring client based on an
Allocation Token that is passed with a transfer command.
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
Clients pass an Allocation Token to the server for validation, and
the server determines if the supplied Allocation Token is one
supported by the server. It is up to server policy which EPP
transform commands and which objects require the Allocation Token.
The Allocation Token MAY be returned to an authorized client for
passing out-of-band to a client that uses it with an EPP transform
command.
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 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.
In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:"
represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and
white space in the examples are provided only to illustrate element
relationships and are not REQUIRED in the protocol.
The XML namespace prefix "allocationToken" is used for the namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-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 "abc123" token value is used as a placeholder value in the
examples. The server MUST support token values that follow the
Security Considerations (Section 6).
The domain-object attribute values, including the "2fooBAR"
<domain:pw> value, in the examples are provided for illustration
purposes only. Refer to [RFC5731] for details on the domain-object
attributes.
2. Object Attributes
This extension adds additional elements to EPP object mappings
similar to the EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731]. Only those new
elements are described here.
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
2.1. Allocation Token
The Allocation Token is a simple XML "token" type. The exact format
of the Allocation Token is up to server policy. The server MAY have
the Allocation Token for each object to match against the Allocation
Token passed by the client to authorize the allocation of the object.
The <allocationToken:allocationToken> element is used for all of the
supported EPP commands as well as the info response. If the supplied
Allocation Token passed to the server does not apply to the object,
the server MUST return an EPP error result code of 2201.
Authorization information, similar to what is defined in the EPP
domain name mapping [RFC5731], is associated with objects to
facilitate transfer operations. The authorization information is
assigned when an object is created. The Allocation Token and the
authorization information are both credentials but are used for
different purposes and in different ways. The Allocation Token is
used to facilitate the allocation of an object instead of
transferring the sponsorship of the object. The Allocation Token is
not managed by the client but is validated by the server to authorize
assigning the initial sponsoring client of the object.
An example <allocationToken:allocationToken> element with value of
"abc123":
<allocationToken:allocationToken xmlns:allocationToken=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0">
abc123
</allocationToken:allocationToken>
3. EPP Command Mapping
A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730].
3.1. EPP Query Commands
EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check>
to determine if an object can be provisioned, <info> to retrieve
information associated with an object, and <transfer> to retrieve
object-transfer status information.
3.1.1. EPP <check> Command
This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <check>
command of an object mapping similar to the mapping specified in
[RFC5731].
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
This extension allows clients to check the availability of an object
with an Allocation Token, as described in Section 2.1. Clients can
check if an object can be created using the Allocation Token. The
Allocation Token is applied to all object names included in the EPP
<check> command.
The following is an example <check> command for the
allocation.example domain name using the
<allocationToken:allocationToken> extension with the allocation token
of '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: <check>
C: <domain:check
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>allocation.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:check>
C: </check>
C: <extension>
C: <allocationToken:allocationToken
C: xmlns:allocationToken=
C: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0">
C: abc123
C: </allocationToken:allocationToken>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
If the query was successful, the server replies with a <check>
response providing the availability status of the queried object
based on the following Allocation Token cases where the object is
otherwise available:
1. If an object requires an Allocation Token and the Allocation
Token does apply to the object, then the server MUST return the
availability status as available (e.g., the "avail" attribute is
"1" or "true").
2. If an object requires an Allocation Token and the Allocation
Token does not apply to the object, then the server SHOULD return
the availability status as unavailable (e.g., the "avail"
attribute is "0" or "false").
3. If an object does not require an Allocation Token, the server MAY
return the availability status as available (e.g., the "avail"
attribute is "1" or "true").
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
The following is an example <check> domain response for a <check>
command using the <allocationToken:allocationToken> extension:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg lang="en-US">Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:chkData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:cd>
S: <domain:name avail="1">allocation.example</domain:name>
S: </domain:cd>
S: </domain:chkData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-DEF-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
The following is an example <check> command with the
<allocationToken:allocationToken> extension for the
allocation.example and allocation2.example domain names.
Availability of allocation.example and allocation2.example domain
names are based on the Allocation Token 'abc123':
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
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>allocation.example</domain:name>
C: <domain:name>allocation2.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:check>
C: </check>
C: <extension>
C: <allocationToken:allocationToken
C: xmlns:allocationToken=
C: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0">
C: abc123
C: </allocationToken:allocationToken>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-DEF-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
The following is an example <check> domain response for multiple
domain names in the <check> command using the
<allocationToken:allocationToken> extension, where the Allocation
Token 'abc123' matches allocation.example but does not match
allocation2.example:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg lang="en-US">Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:chkData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:cd>
S: <domain:name avail="1">allocation.example</domain:name>
S: </domain:cd>
S: <domain:cd>
S: <domain:name avail="0">allocation2.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:reason>Allocation Token mismatch</domain:reason>
S: </domain:cd>
S: </domain:chkData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-DEF-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <check> response
described in [RFC5730].
3.1.2. EPP <info> Command
This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <info>
command of an object mapping similar to the mapping specified in
[RFC5731].
The EPP <info> command allows a client to request information
associated with an existing object. Authorized clients MAY retrieve
the Allocation Token (Section 2.1) along with the other object
information by supplying the <allocationToken:info> element in the
command. The <allocationToken:info> element is an empty element that
serves as a marker to the server to return the
<allocationToken:allocationToken> element in the info response. If
the client is not authorized to receive the Allocation Token, the
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
server MUST return an EPP error result code of 2201. If the client
is authorized to receive the Allocation Token, but there is no
Allocation Token associated with the object, the server MUST return
an EPP error result code of 2303. The authorization is subject to
server policy.
The following is an example <info> command with the
allocationToken:info extension for the allocation.example domain
name:
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>allocation.example</domain:name>
C: </domain:info>
C: </info>
C: <extension>
C: <allocationToken:info
C: xmlns:allocationToken=
C: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0"/>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
If the query was successful, the server replies with an
<allocationToken:allocationToken> element along with the regular EPP
<resData>. The <allocationToken:allocationToken> element is
described in Section 2.1.
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
The following is an example <info> domain response using the
<allocationToken:allocationToken> extension:
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>allocation.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: <allocationToken:allocationToken
S: xmlns:allocationToken=
S: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0">
S: abc123
S: </allocationToken:allocationToken>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
3.1.3. EPP <transfer> Query Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer> query
command or <transfer> query response described in [RFC5730].
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
3.2. EPP Transform Commands
EPP provides five commands to transform objects: <create> to create
an instance of an object, <delete> to delete an instance of an
object, <renew> to extend the validity period of an object,
<transfer> to manage object sponsorship changes, and <update> to
change information associated with an object.
3.2.1. EPP <create> Command
This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <create>
command of an object mapping similar to the mapping specified in
[RFC5731].
The EPP <create> command provides a transform operation that allows a
client to create an instance of an object. In addition to the EPP
command elements described in an object mapping similar to the
mapping specified in [RFC5731], the command MUST contain a child
<allocationToken:allocationToken> element for the client to be
authorized to create and allocate the object. If the Allocation
Token does not apply to the object, the server MUST return an EPP
error result code of 2201.
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
The following is an example <create> command to create a domain
object with an Allocation Token:
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>allocation.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: <allocationToken:allocationToken
C: xmlns:allocationToken=
C: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0">
C: abc123
C: </allocationToken:allocationToken>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <create> response
described in [RFC5730].
3.2.2. EPP <delete> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <delete> command
or <delete> response described in [RFC5730].
3.2.3. EPP <renew> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <renew> command
or <renew> response described in [RFC5730].
3.2.4. EPP <transfer> Command
This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP
<transfer> command of an object mapping similar to the mapping
specified in [RFC5731].
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
The EPP <transfer> command provides a transform operation that allows
a client to request the transfer of an object. In addition to the
EPP command elements described in an object mapping similar to the
mapping specified in [RFC5731], the command MUST contain a child
<allocationToken:allocationToken> element for the client to be
authorized to transfer and allocate the object. The authorization
associated with the Allocation Token is in addition to, and does not
replace, the authorization mechanism defined for the object's
<transfer> command. If the Allocation Token is invalid or not
required for the object, the server MUST return an EPP error result
code of 2201.
The following is an example <transfer> command to allocate the domain
object with the Allocation Token:
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <transfer op="request">
C: <domain:transfer
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>example1.tld</domain:name>
C: <domain:period unit="y">1</domain:period>
C: <domain:authInfo>
C: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
C: </domain:authInfo>
C: </domain:transfer>
C: </transfer>
C: <extension>
C: <allocationToken:allocationToken
C: xmlns:allocationToken=
C: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0">
C: abc123
C: </allocationToken:allocationToken>
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
response described in [RFC5730].
3.2.5. EPP <update> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <update> command
or <update> response described in [RFC5730].
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
4. Formal Syntax
One schema is presented here: the EPP Allocation Token Extension
schema.
The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation
of the object mapping suitable for automated validation of EPP XML
instances. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they
are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI
registration purposes.
4.1. Allocation Token Extension Schema
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:allocationToken="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<annotation>
<documentation>
Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
Allocation Token Extension
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- Element used in info command to get allocation token. -->
<element name="info">
<complexType>
<complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType" />
</complexContent>
</complexType>
</element>
<!-- Allocation Token used in transform
commands and info response -->
<element name="allocationToken"
type="allocationToken:allocationTokenType" />
<simpleType name="allocationTokenType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1" />
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- End of schema. -->
</schema>
END
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
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].
The allocationToken namespace has been registered as follows.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
The allocationToken XML schema has been registered as follows.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:allocationToken-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
5.2. EPP Extension Registry
The following entry has been added to the Extensions for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) registry, as described in
[RFC7451].
Name of Extension: Allocation Token Extension for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Document Status: Standards Track
Reference: RFC 8495
Registrant: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
6. Security Considerations
The mapping described in this document does not provide any security
services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers
used by EPP. The security considerations described in these other
specifications apply to this specification as well.
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
The mapping acts as a conduit for the passing of Allocation Tokens
between a client and a server. The definition of the Allocation
Token SHOULD be defined outside of this mapping. The following are
security considerations in the definition and use of an Allocation
Token:
1. An Allocation Token should be considered secret information by
the client; it SHOULD be protected at rest and MUST be protected
in transit.
2. An Allocation Token should be single use, meaning it should be
unique per object and per allocation operation.
3. An Allocation Token should have a limited life with some form of
expiry in the Allocation Token, if generated by a trusted third
party, or with a server-side expiry, if generated by the server.
4. An Allocation Token should use a strong random value if it is
based on an unsigned code.
5. An Allocation Token should leverage digital signatures to confirm
its authenticity if generated by a trusted third party.
6. An Allocation Token that is signed XML should be encoded (e.g.,
base64 [RFC4648]) to mitigate server validation issues.
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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8495 Allocation Token November 2018
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[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 original concept for this
document and the efforts in the initial draft versions of this
document by Trung Tran and Sharon Wodjenski.
Special suggestions that have been incorporated into this document
were provided by Ben Campbell, Scott Hollenbeck, Benjamin Kaduk,
Mirja Kuehlewind, Rubens Kuhl, Alexander Mayrhofer, Patrick Mevzek,
Eric Rescoria, and Adam Roach.
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
Kal Feher
Neustar
lvl 8/10 Queens Road
Melbourne, VIC 3004
Australia
Email: ietf@feherfamily.org
URI: http://www.neustar.biz
Gould & Feher Standards Track [Page 17]