Skip to main content

Change Poll Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
RFC 8590

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-08-19
12 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2019-08-19
12 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Joel Jaeggli was marked no-response
2019-05-10
12 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8590, changed abstract to 'This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension for notifying …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8590, changed abstract to 'This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension for notifying clients of operations on client-sponsored objects that were not initiated by the client through EPP.  These operations may include contractual or policy requirements including, but not limited to, regular batch processes, customer support actions, Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) or Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) actions, court-directed actions, and bulk updates based on customer requests.  Since the client is not directly involved or knowledgable of these operations, the extension is used along with an EPP object mapping to provide the resulting state of the postoperation object, and optionally a preoperation object, with the operation metadata of what, when, who, and why.', changed pages to 20, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2019-05-10, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2019-05-10
12 (System) RFC published
2019-05-10
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2019-04-23
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2019-04-09
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2019-03-09
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2019-03-06
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2019-03-06
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2019-03-05
12 Antoin Verschuren Added to session: IETF-104: regext  Mon-1350
2019-02-22
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-02-21
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2019-02-21
12 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-02-21
12 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-02-21
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2019-02-21
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2019-02-21
12 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2019-02-21
12 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-02-21
12 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2019-02-21
12 Adam Roach IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-01-04
12 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for resolving my Discuss point!  Original ballot Comment section preserved below:


Thanks for the generally well-written document!

There are several places …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for resolving my Discuss point!  Original ballot Comment section preserved below:


Thanks for the generally well-written document!

There are several places in the document where we read about a "list of [...]
values includes" that is in fact required to be one of a fixed enumerated set
of values.  In such cases I would suggest "comprises" or "is" rather than "includes",
which could be taken to indicate the possibility of additional values being defined
at a later time.  Section 2.1 has multiple instances of this, and Section 3.12. as well.

Section 2.2

Maybe state explicitly what it's inserted into, for clarity.

Section 2.3

"CSR" could expand to either "Customer Support Representative" or
"Certificate Signing Request" for some people.  I don't know if there's
better name to suggest.

Section 2.4

I don't know if it's worth saying anything that would remind recipients of
their (non-?)obligation to accept time values that correspond to leap
seconds, but IIRC we've seen cases in the past of software that chokes when
presented with leap-second timestamps.
2019-01-04
12 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-01-04
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-01-04
12 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-12.txt
2019-01-04
12 (System) New version approved
2019-01-04
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2019-01-04
12 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2019-01-03
11 Adam Roach Waiting for changes to satisfy Benjamin Kaduk's DISCUSS.
2019-01-03
11 Adam Roach IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-12-10
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-12-10
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-12-10
11 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-11.txt
2018-12-10
11 (System) New version approved
2018-12-10
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2018-12-10
11 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2018-12-10
10 Adam Roach Author has indicated a set of proposed updates.
2018-12-10
10 Adam Roach IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-12-06
10 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2018-12-06
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2018-12-06
10 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2018-12-05
10 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-12-05
10 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-12-05
10 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this...
2018-12-05
10 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2018-12-05
10 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-12-03
10 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2018-12-03
10 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-11-29
10 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fairly minor point, but the text of Section 2.3 implies that there is
a distinct list of identifier types that …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fairly minor point, but the text of Section 2.3 implies that there is
a distinct list of identifier types that the server MAY use (and thus that there would
be a protocol element to convey such an identifier type), but the actual schema in
Section 4.1 is clear that the  element is just a freeform token with
some modest length restrictions (i.e., no place for internal structure).  I'd like to
hear from others on the IESG whether the text about the schema used being up
to server policy is enough to make this clear, or we think there is some level of
internal inconsistency in the document to be rectified.
2018-11-29
10 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the generally well-written document!

There are several places in the document where we read about a "list of [...]
values includes" …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the generally well-written document!

There are several places in the document where we read about a "list of [...]
values includes" that is in fact required to be one of a fixed enumerated set
of values.  In such cases I would suggest "comprises" or "is" rather than "includes",
which could be taken to indicate the possibility of additional values being defined
at a later time.  Section 2.1 has multiple instances of this, and Section 3.12. as well.

Section 2.2

Maybe state explicitly what it's inserted into, for clarity.

Section 2.3

"CSR" could expand to either "Customer Support Representative" or
"Certificate Signing Request" for some people.  I don't know if there's
better name to suggest.

Section 2.4

I don't know if it's worth saying anything that would remind recipients of
their (non-?)obligation to accept time values that correspond to leap
seconds, but IIRC we've seen cases in the past of software that chokes when
presented with leap-second timestamps.
2018-11-29
10 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2018-11-29
10 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-11-20
10 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2018-11-05
10 James Galvin Added to session: IETF-103: regext  Tue-1350
2018-11-05
10 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-12-06
2018-11-05
10 Adam Roach IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2018-11-05
10 Adam Roach Ballot has been issued
2018-11-05
10 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-11-05
10 Adam Roach Created "Approve" ballot
2018-11-05
10 Adam Roach Ballot writeup was changed
2018-11-05
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-11-02
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2018-11-02
10 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there are three actions we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single new registration will be made:

ID: changePoll-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required expert review via a separate request.

Second, in the schema registry also on the IETF XML Registry page located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single new registration will be made:

ID: changePoll-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:changePoll-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required expert review via a separate request.

Third, in the Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/

a single new registration will be made:

Name of Extension: Change Poll Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Document Status: Standards Track
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Registrant: IESG
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required expert review via a separate request.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2018-10-29
10 Valery Smyslov Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Valery Smyslov.
2018-10-26
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2018-10-26
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2018-10-25
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Valery Smyslov
2018-10-25
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Valery Smyslov
2018-10-25
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2018-10-25
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2018-10-22
10 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-10-22
10 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-11-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: " rcarney@godaddy.com" , adam@nostrum.com, regext-chairs@ietf.org, rcarney@godaddy.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-11-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: " rcarney@godaddy.com" , adam@nostrum.com, regext-chairs@ietf.org, rcarney@godaddy.com, draft-ietf-regext-change-poll@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Change Poll Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Change Poll Extension for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-11-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
  extension for notifying clients of operations on client-sponsored
  objects that were not initiated by the client through EPP.  These
  operations may include contractual or policy requirements including
  but not limited to regular batch processes, customer support actions,
  Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) or Uniform Rapid
  Suspension (URS) actions, court-directed actions, and bulk updates
  based on customer requests.  Since the client is not directly
  involved or knowledgable of these operations, the extension is used
  along with an EPP object mapping to provide the resulting state of
  the post-operation object, and optionally a pre-operation object,
  with the operation meta-data of what, when, who, and why.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-change-poll/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-change-poll/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2018-10-22
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-10-22
10 Adam Roach Last call was requested
2018-10-22
10 Adam Roach Last call announcement was generated
2018-10-22
10 Adam Roach Ballot approval text was generated
2018-10-22
10 Adam Roach Ballot writeup was generated
2018-10-22
10 Adam Roach IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-10-22
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-10-22
10 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-10.txt
2018-10-22
10 (System) New version approved
2018-10-22
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2018-10-22
10 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2018-10-19
09 Adam Roach See AD Evaluation: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/QkK7yfcFt1DjMwg7QiCNTjHYoCg
2018-10-19
09 Adam Roach IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2018-10-18
09 Adam Roach IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2018-10-12
09 Antoin Verschuren
Technical Summary

This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension mapping for change poll notifications.

Working Group Summary

draft-ietf-regext-change-poll is on standards track.  This …
Technical Summary

This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension mapping for change poll notifications.

Working Group Summary

draft-ietf-regext-change-poll is on standards track.  This extension adds additional elements to the EPP domain name mapping defined in RFC 5731, which is an internet standard.

Document Quality

This document has been widely discussed on the mailing lists of the regext and eppext working groups.  The authors have addressed all comments and many changes have been incorporated in the document. 

Verisign and Neustar both have working implementations of this specification.


Personnel

Document shepherd is Roger Carney, rcarney@godaddy.com
Area Director is Adam Roach, adam@nostrum.com

Shepherd Comments

As document shepherd I have verified that all XML examples against the provided  schema and EPP schemas from RFC 5730 and RFC 5371. Some examples have left out part of the XML to be more concise and better show the point of the introduced changes. These examples have been verified by the document shepherd with added XML data.

The author has confirmed following BCP78 and BCP79 in the document header. No IPR disclosures have been submitted for this document.

The IANA considerations follow the defined format for the submission to the XML and EPP registries.

All normative and informative references have been verified.

After carefully reviewing the mailings lists of the regext and eppext working groups I have found no objections to this document. From IETF meetings I recall consensus that this document is ready for publication.

As document shepherd, I believe this document is ready for publication.
2018-10-12
09 Antoin Verschuren Responsible AD changed to Adam Roach
2018-10-12
09 Antoin Verschuren IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2018-10-12
09 Antoin Verschuren IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-10-12
09 Antoin Verschuren IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-10-11
09 Roger Carney Changed document writeup
2018-10-04
09 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-09.txt
2018-10-04
09 (System) New version approved
2018-10-04
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2018-10-04
09 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2018-09-12
08 Roger Carney Changed document writeup
2018-05-16
08 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-08.txt
2018-05-16
08 (System) New version approved
2018-05-16
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: regext-chairs@ietf.org, Kal Feher , James Gould
2018-05-16
08 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2018-04-06
07 Antoin Verschuren IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2018-01-29
07 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-07.txt
2018-01-29
07 (System) New version approved
2018-01-29
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2018-01-29
07 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2018-01-26
06 James Galvin Notification list changed to " rcarney@godaddy.com" <rcarney@godaddy.com>
2018-01-26
06 James Galvin Document shepherd changed to rcarney@godaddy.com
2018-01-12
06 Antoin Verschuren Requesting volunteers as a document shepherd.
2018-01-12
06 Antoin Verschuren IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2018-01-05
06 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-06.txt
2018-01-05
06 (System) New version approved
2018-01-05
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2018-01-05
06 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2018-01-02
05 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-05.txt
2018-01-02
05 (System) New version approved
2018-01-02
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2018-01-02
05 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2017-10-18
04 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-04.txt
2017-10-18
04 (System) New version approved
2017-10-18
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kal Feher , James Gould
2017-10-18
04 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2017-07-03
03 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-03.txt
2017-07-03
03 (System) New version approved
2017-07-03
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: regext-chairs@ietf.org, James Gould , Sharon Wodjenski
2017-07-03
03 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2017-06-23
02 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-02.txt
2017-06-23
02 (System) New version approved
2017-06-23
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: regext-chairs@ietf.org, James Gould , Sharon Wodjenski
2017-06-23
02 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2017-04-17
01 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-01.txt
2017-04-17
01 (System) New version approved
2017-04-17
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: regext-chairs@ietf.org, James Gould , Sharon Wodjenski
2017-04-17
01 James Gould Uploaded new revision
2017-04-17
00 (System) Document has expired
2016-11-14
00 Antoin Verschuren Added to session: IETF-97: regext  Fri-0930
2016-10-21
00 James Galvin Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-10-21
00 James Galvin Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-10-21
00 James Galvin Renamed after working group adoption
2016-10-21
00 James Galvin This document now replaces draft-gould-change-poll instead of None
2016-10-14
00 James Gould New version available: draft-ietf-regext-change-poll-00.txt
2016-10-14
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2016-10-14
00 James Gould Set submitter to "James Gould ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: regext-chairs@ietf.org
2016-10-14
00 James Gould Uploaded new revision