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 |