[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 3915

Network Working Group                                      S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft                                            VeriSign, Inc.
Expires: November 13, 2003                                  May 15, 2003


    Redemption Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning
                                Protocol
                    draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for the management of Domain Name System (DNS)
   domain names subject to the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) policies
   defined by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   (ICANN).  Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name
   mapping to provide additional features required for RGP processing.

Conventions Used In This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].



Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


   In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:"
   represents lines returned by a protocol server.  Indentation and
   white space in examples is provided only to illustrate element
   relationships and is not a REQUIRED feature of this specification.

Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.1   Changes from Previous Version  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.    Redemption Grace Period State Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.    Object Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.1   Status Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.    EPP Command Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.1   EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.1.1 EPP <check> Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.1.2 EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.1.3 EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.2   EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.2.1 EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.2.2 EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.2.3 EPP <renew> Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.2.4 EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.2.5 EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.    Formal Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.    Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.    IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
         Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
         Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
         Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 21



















Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


1. Introduction

   This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the
   Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP).  This mapping, an extension
   of the domain name mapping described in [2], is specified using the
   Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in [3] and XML
   Schema notation as described in [4] and [5].

   The EPP core protocol specification [6] provides a complete
   description of EPP command and response structures.  A thorough
   understanding of the base protocol specification is necessary to
   understand the mapping described in this document.

   Over the course of several months in 2002, the Internet Corporation
   for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) developed an implementation
   proposal [11] to provide a "grace period" for Domain Name System
   (DNS) domain name recovery (or redemption) before a domain name is
   purged from the repository of the authoritative registry for the
   domain name.  This mapping extends the EPP domain <renew> command to
   initiate the redemption process for a domain name that has entered
   the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) and it extends the EPP domain
   <info> response to identify the status of domains that have entered
   the RGP.

   XML is case sensitive.  Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
   and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the
   character case presented to develop a conforming implementation.

1.1 Changes from Previous Version

   (Note to RFC editor: please remove this section completely before
   publication as an RFC.)

   None, this is the initial version.

















Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


2. Redemption Grace Period State Diagram

   The Redemption Grace Period (RGP) involves several domain state
   transitions as a domain name moves through the redemption process:

   1.   A domain is initially in the EPP "ok" status, or some other
        status that allows processing of the EPP <delete> command.

   2.   A <delete> command is received and processed for the domain
        name.

   3.   RGP begins once the <delete> command is processed successfully.
        The EPP status changes to "pendingDelete", and the RGP status is
        initialized to "redemptionPeriod".  The domain remains in this
        state until either a <restore> operation is requested or the
        redemption period elapses.

   4.   A <restore> operation can be requested using the extended EPP
        <renew> command.  Go to step 8 if the redemption period elapses
        before a <restore> request is received.

   5.   If the <restore> is successful, the Registry waits to receive a
        restore report from the registrar for a period of time defined
        by the Registry.  The EPP status remains "pendingDelete" (TBD:
        should it instead change back to "ok"?) and the RGP status
        changes to "pendingRestore". (TBD: should the report be
        submitted through the protocol (as part of the <restore>) or an
        out-of-band facility such as a web site?)

   6.   The domain name returns to the redemption period state (state 3)
        if a restore report is not received.

   7.   If a restore report is received the EPP status returns to "ok"
        (or whatever it was prior to processing the <delete> command),
        and the RGP status is removed completely.

   8.   The redemption period elapses before a <restore> request is
        received.

   9.   The EPP status remains "pendingDelete" and the RGP status
        changes to "pendingDelete".  The domain name remains in this
        state for a period of time defined by the Registry.

   10.  The domain name is purged once the pending delete period
        elapses.

   11.  The domain name is available for re-registration.




Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


             |
             |
             v
   +----------------------+    (2)   +----------------------+
   |EPP: ok            (1)| <delete> |EPP: pendingDelete (3)|
   |RGP: N/A              |--------->|RGP: redemptionPeriod |
   +----------------------+          +----------------------+
      ^                         (4)    |  ^             |
      |                      <restore> |  |      No (8) |
      |                    +-----------+  |   <restore> |
      |                    |              |             |
      |                    v              |             v
      |  +----------------------+         |  +----------------------+
      |  |EPP: pendingDelete (5)|         |  |EPP: pendingDelete (9)|
      |  |RGP: pendingRestore   |---------+  |RGP: pendingDelete    |
      |  +----------------------+ Report     +----------------------+
      |                    |      not (6)               |
      |          (7)       |      Received   Purge (10) |
      |    Report Received |                            |
      +--------------------+                            v
                                             +----------------------+
                                             |       Purged     (11)|
                                             |                      |
                                             +----------------------+

   Figure 1: RGP State Diagram

























Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


3. Object Attributes

   This extension adds additional elements to the domain name mapping
   described in the EPP domain mapping [2].  Only new element
   descriptions are described here.

3.1 Status Values

   This extension defines three new status values to represent the
   different states that a domain can be in as a result of redemption
   grace period processing.  These are:

      redemptionPeriod: This status value is used to describe a domain
      for which a <delete> command has been received, but the domain has
      not yet been purged because an opportunity exists to restore the
      domain and abort the deletion process. The amount of time that a
      domain can stay in this status before being entering purge
      processing is a matter of registry policy.

      pendingRestore: This status value is used to describe a domain
      that is in the process of being restored after being in the
      redemptionPeriod state.  The amount of time that a domain can stay
      in this status before being returned to the redemptionPeriod state
      is a matter of registry policy.

      pendingDelete: This status value is used to describe a domain that
      has entered the purge processing state after completing the
      redemptionPeriod state.  The amount of time that a domain can stay
      in this status before being being purged is a matter of registry
      policy.  A domain in this status MUST also be in the pendingDelete
      status described in the EPP domain mapping [2].




















Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


4. EPP Command Mapping

   A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
   in the EPP core protocol specification [6]. The command mappings
   described here are specifically for use in implementing redemption
   grace period processes via EPP.

4.1 EPP Query Commands

   EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check>
   to determine if an object is known to the server, <info> to retrieve
   detailed information associated with an object, and <transfer> to
   retrieve object transfer status information.

4.1.1 EPP <check> Command

   This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <check> command
   or <check> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].

4.1.2 EPP <info> Command

   This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <info> command
   described in the EPP domain mapping [2].  Additional elements are
   defined for the <info> response.

   When an <info> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
   <resData> element MUST contain child elements as described in [2].
   In addition, the EPP <extension> element MUST contain a child
   <rgp:infData> element that identifies the RGP namespace and the
   location of the RGP schema.  The <rgp:infData> element contains a
   single <rgp:rgpStatus> element that contains a single attribute "s"
   whose value describes the current RGP status of the domain.  Possible
   status values are described in section Section 3.1.

   Example <info> response for "redemptionPeriod" status:

   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
   S:     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
   S:     xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
   S:     epp-1.0.xsd">
   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"



Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


   S:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
   S:       domain-1.0.xsd">
   S:        <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
   S:        <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
   S:        <domain:status s="pendingDelete"/>
   S:        <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
   S:        <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
   S:        <domain:ns>
   S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
   S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.net</domain:hostObj>
   S:        </domain:ns>
   S:        <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
   S:        <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
   S:        <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
   S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
   S:        <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
   S:        <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
   S:        <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
   S:        <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
   S:        <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
   S:        <domain:authInfo>
   S:          <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
   S:        </domain:authInfo>
   S:      </domain:infData>
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <extension>
   S:      <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
   S:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
   S:       rgp-1.0.xsd">
   S:        <rgp:rgpStatus s="redemptionPeriod"/>
   S:      </rgp:infData>
   S:    </extension>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>

   Example <info> response extension for "pendingRestore" status (note
   that only the extension element changes from the first example):









Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


   S:    <extension>
   S:      <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
   S:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
   S:       rgp-1.0.xsd">
   S:        <rgp:rgpStatus s="pendingRestore"/>
   S:      </rgp:infData>
   S:    </extension>

   Example <info> response extension for "pendingDelete" status (note
   that only the extension element changes from the first example):

   S:    <extension>
   S:      <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
   S:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
   S:       rgp-1.0.xsd">
   S:        <rgp:rgpStatus s="pendingDelete"/>
   S:      </rgp:infData>
   S:    </extension>


4.1.3 EPP <transfer> Command

   This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
   command or <transfer> response described in the EPP domain mapping
   [2].

4.2 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.

4.2.1 EPP <create> Command

   This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <create> command
   or <create> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].

4.2.2 EPP <delete> Command

   This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <delete> command
   or <delete> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].

4.2.3 EPP <renew> Command

   This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <renew>
   command and response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].



Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


   The EPP <renew> command provides a transform operation that allows a
   client to extend the registration period a domain object.  In
   addition to the EPP command elements described in the EPP domain
   mapping [2], the command MUST contain an <extension> element.  The
   <extension> element MUST contain a child <rgp:renew> element that
   identifies the RGP namespace and the location of the RGP schema.  The
   <rgp:renew> element contains a single <rgp:restore> element that
   contains no child elements of its own.

   Example <renew> command:

   C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
   C:     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
   C:     xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
   C:     epp-1.0.xsd">
   C:  <command>
   C:    <renew>
   C:      <domain:renew
   C:       xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
   C:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
   C:       domain-1.0.xsd">
   C:        <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
   C:        <domain:curExpDate>2003-05-18</domain:curExpDate>
   C:        <domain:period unit="y">1</domain:period>
   C:      </domain:renew>
   C:    </renew>
   C:    <extension>
   C:      <rgp:renew xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
   C:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
   C:       rgp-1.0.xsd">
   C:        <rgp:restore/>
   C:      </rgp:renew>
   C:    </extension>
   C:    <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   C:  </command>
   C:</epp>

   When an extended <renew> command has been processed successfully, the
   EPP response is as described in the EPP domain mapping [2] except
   that an extension element is added to describe RGP status as a result
   of processing the <renew> command.  The extension element contains a
   single child element (<renData>) that itself contains a single child
   element (<rgpStatus>) that contains a single attribute "s" whose
   value MUST be "pendingRestore" if the <restore> request has been
   accepted.

   Example <renew> response:



Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


   S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
   S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
   S:     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
   S:     xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
   S:     epp-1.0.xsd">
   S:  <response>
   S:    <result code="1000">
   S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
   S:    </result>
   S:    <resData>
   S:      <domain:renData
   S:       xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
   S:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
   S:       domain-1.0.xsd">
   S:        <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
   S:        <domain:exDate>2004-05-18T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
   S:      </domain:renData>
   S:    </resData>
   S:    <extension>
   S:      <rgp:renData xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
   S:       xsi:schemaLocation="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0
   S:       rgp-1.0.xsd">
   S:        <rgp:rgpStatus s="pendingRestore"/>
   S:      </rgp:renData>
   S:    </extension>
   S:    <trID>
   S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
   S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
   S:    </trID>
   S:  </response>
   S:</epp>


4.2.4 EPP <transfer> Command

   This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
   command or <transfer> response described in the EPP domain mapping
   [2].

4.2.5 EPP <update> Command

   This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <update> command
   or <update> response described in the EPP domain mapping [2].








Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


5. Formal Syntax

   An EPP object mapping is specified in XML Schema notation.  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.

   BEGIN
   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

   <schema targetNamespace="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
           xmlns:rgp="urn:EPP:xml:ns:ext:rgp-1.0"
           xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
           elementFormDefault="qualified">

     <annotation>
       <documentation>
         Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
         domain name extension schema for redemption grace period (RGP)
         processing.
       </documentation>
     </annotation>

   <!--
   Child elements found in EPP commands.
   -->
     <element name="renew" type="rgp:renewType"/>

   <!--
   Child elements of the <renew> command.
   -->
     <complexType name="renewType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="restore"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

   <!--
   Child response elements.
   -->
     <element name="infData" type="rgp:respDataType"/>
     <element name="renData" type="rgp:respDataType"/>

   <!--
   <info> and <renew> response elements.
   -->



Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


     <complexType name="respDataType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="rgpStatus" type="rgp:statusType"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

   <!--
   Status is a combination of attributes and an optional human-readable
   message that may be expressed in languages other than English.
   -->
     <complexType name="statusType">
       <simpleContent>
         <extension base="normalizedString">
           <attribute name="s" type="rgp:statusValueType"
            use="required"/>
           <attribute name="lang" type="language"
            default="en"/>
         </extension>
       </simpleContent>
     </complexType>

     <simpleType name="statusValueType">
       <restriction base="token">
         <enumeration value="pendingDelete"/>
         <enumeration value="pendingRestore"/>
         <enumeration value="redemptionPeriod"/>
       </restriction>
     </simpleType>

   <!--
   End of schema.
   -->
   </schema>
   END

















Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


6. Internationalization Considerations

   EPP is represented in XML, which provides native support for encoding
   information using the Unicode character set and its more compact
   representations including UTF-8 [9].  Conformant XML processors
   recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16 [10].  Though XML includes provisions
   to identify and use other character encodings through use of an
   "encoding" attribute in an <?xml?> declaration, use of UTF-8 is
   RECOMMENDED in environments where parser encoding support
   incompatibility exists.

   As an extension of the EPP domain mapping [2], the elements, element
   content, attributes, and attribute values described in this document
   MUST inherit the internationalization conventions used to represent
   higher-layer domain and core protocol structures present in an XML
   instance that includes this extension.



































Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


7. IANA Considerations

   This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
   conforming to a registry mechanism described in [7].  Two URI
   assignments are requested.

   Registration request for the RGP namespace:

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:RGP-1.0

   Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
   document.

   XML: None.  Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.

   Registration request for the RGP XML schema:

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:RGP-1.0

   Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
   document.

   XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.




























Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


8. Security Considerations

   The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any
   security services beyond those described by EPP [6], the EPP domain
   name mapping [2], and protocol layers used by EPP.  The security
   considerations described in these other specifications apply to this
   specification as well.












































Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


9. Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank the following people who have provided
   significant contributions to the development of this document:

   TBD.













































Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol Domain Name
        Mapping", draft-ietf-provreg-epp-domain-07 (work in progress),
        April 2003.

   [3]  Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler,
        "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed)", W3C REC-xml,
        October 2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml>.

   [4]  Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M. and N. Mendelsohn, "XML
        Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C REC-xmlschema-1, May 2001,
        <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>.

   [5]  Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
        REC-xmlschema-2, May 2001, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>.

   [6]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol",
        draft-ietf-provreg-epp-09 (work in progress), March 2003.

   [7]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry",
        draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-04 (work in progress), July
        2002.

   [8]  Bray, T., Hollander, D. and A. Layman, "Namespaces in XML", W3C
        REC-xml-names, January 1999, <http://www.w3.org/TR/
        REC-xml-names>.





















Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


Informative References

   [9]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC
         2279, January 1998.

   [10]  Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646",
         RFC 2781, February 2000.












































Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


URIs

   [11]  <http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm>


Author's Address

   Scott Hollenbeck
   VeriSign, Inc.
   21345 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  20166-6503
   US

   EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.com





































Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft              EPP RGP Mapping                     May 2003


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











































Hollenbeck             Expires November 13, 2003               [Page 22]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/