draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-00.txt		draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-01.txt
	Network Working Group J. Gould		Network Working Group J. Gould
	Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.		Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
	Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Casanova		Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Casanova
	Expires: August 17, 2020 SWITCH		Expires: October 25, 2020 SWITCH
	February 14, 2020		April 23, 2020
	Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces		Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
	draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-00		draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,		The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,
	includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects		includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
	to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used		to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
	during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.		during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
	How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned		How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
	in the response when the client does not support the required service		in the response when the client does not support the required service
	namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An		namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
	skipping to change at page 1, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 44 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 28 ¶
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4		3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4
	3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4. Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 16		7.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		7.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		8.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 17
	A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],		The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],
	includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects		includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
	to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used		to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
	during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.		during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
	How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned		How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
	in the response when the client does not support the required service		in the response when the client does not support the required service
	namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An		namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
	unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of		unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
	[RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the		[RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the
	server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client		server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client
	needs to be capable of processing all poll messages. An unhandled		needs to be capable of processing all poll messages. An unhandled
	namespace is an issue also for general EPP responses when the server		namespace is an issue also for general EPP responses when the server
	has information that it cannot return to the client due to the		has information that it cannot return to the client due to the
	client's supported services. The server should be able to return		client's supported services. The server should be able to return
	skipping to change at page 10, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 19 ¶
	S: </domain:authInfo>		S: </domain:authInfo>
	S: </domain:infData>		S: </domain:infData>
	S: </resData>		S: </resData>
	S: <trID>		S: <trID>
	S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>		S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
	S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>		S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
	S: </trID>		S: </trID>
	S: </response>		S: </response>
	S:</epp>		S:</epp>
	4. Usage with General EPP Responses		4. Signaling Client and Server Support
			This document does not define new protocol but a Best Current
			Practice (BCP) using the existing EPP protocol, where the client and
			the server can signal support for the BCP using a namespace URI in
			the login and greeting extension services. The namespace URI
			"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-0.1" is used to
			signal support for the BCP. The client includes the namespace URI in
			an <svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730] <login> Command.
			The server includes the namespace URI in an <svcExtension> <extURI>
			element of the [RFC5730] Greeting.
			A client that receives the namespace URI in the server's Greeting
			extension services, can expect the following supported behavior by
			the server:
			1. Support unhandled namespace object-level extensions and command-
			response extensions in EPP poll messages, per Section 6.
			2. Support the option of unhandled namespace command-response
			extensions in general EPP responses, per Section 5.
			A server that receives the namespace URI in the client's <login>
			Command extension services, can expect the following supported
			behavior by the client:
			1. Support monitoring the EPP poll messages and general EPP
			responses for unhandled namespaces.
			5. Usage with General EPP Responses
	The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for		The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for
	a general EPP response to an EPP command. A general EPP response		a general EPP response to an EPP command. A general EPP response
	includes any non-poll message EPP response. The use of the unhandled		includes any non-poll message EPP response. The use of the unhandled
	namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in		namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in
	Section 5. The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace		Section 6. The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace
	information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the		information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the
	unhandled namespace approach.		unhandled namespace approach.
	The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD		The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD
	only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in		only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in
	Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP		Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP
	command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI		command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI
	in the login services. An object-level EPP response extension is		in the login services. An object-level EPP response extension is
	returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP		returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP
	command extension. The server MAY return an unhandled object-level		command extension. The server MAY return an unhandled object-level
	skipping to change at page 12, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 32 ¶
	S: </domain:authInfo>		S: </domain:authInfo>
	S: </domain:infData>		S: </domain:infData>
	S: </resData>		S: </resData>
	S: <trID>		S: <trID>
	S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>		S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
	S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>		S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
	S: </trID>		S: </trID>
	S: </response>		S: </response>
	S:</epp>		S:</epp>
	5. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses		6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses
	The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used		The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used
	if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll>		if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll>
	message response. The server inserts poll messages into the client's		message response. The server inserts poll messages into the client's
	poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login		poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login
	services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command-		services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command-
	response extensions included in a client's poll queue. In [RFC5730],		response extensions included in a client's poll queue. In [RFC5730],
	the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge		the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge
	poll messages that have been inserted by the server. The <poll>		poll messages that have been inserted by the server. The <poll>
	message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element		message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element
	skipping to change at page 15, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 43 ¶
	S: <qDate>2018-08-24T19:23:12.822Z</qDate>		S: <qDate>2018-08-24T19:23:12.822Z</qDate>
	S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>		S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
	S: </msgQ>		S: </msgQ>
	S: <trID>		S: <trID>
	S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>		S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
	S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>		S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
	S: </trID>		S: </trID>
	S: </response>		S: </response>
	S:</epp>		S:</epp>
	6. Implementation Status		7. IANA Considerations
			7.1. XML Namespace
			This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
			registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI
			assignment is requested of IANA:
			Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace:
			URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-0.1
			Registrant Contact: IESG
			XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
			7.2. EPP Extension Registry
			The EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) described in this document should
			be registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in
			[RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows:
			Name of Extension: "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled
			Namespaces"
			Document status: Best Current Practice
			Reference: (insert reference to RFC version of this document)
			Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
			TLDs: Any
			IPR Disclosure: None
			Status: Active
			Notes: None
			8. Implementation Status
	Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to		Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
	RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.		RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.
	This section records the status of known implementations of the		This section records the status of known implementations of the
	protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this		protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
	Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942		Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
	[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is		[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is
	intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing		intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
	drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual		drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
	skipping to change at page 15, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 8 ¶
	implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that		implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
	other implementations may exist.		other implementations may exist.
	According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and		According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and
	working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the		working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
	benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable		benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
	experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols		experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
	more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this		more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
	information as they see fit".		information as they see fit".
	6.1. Verisign EPP SDK		8.1. Verisign EPP SDK
	Organization: Verisign Inc.		Organization: Verisign Inc.
	Name: Verisign EPP SDK		Name: Verisign EPP SDK
	Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the		Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the
	unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages.		unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages.
	Level of maturity: Development		Level of maturity: Development
	Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.		Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
	Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License		Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License
	Contact: jgould@verisign.com		Contact: jgould@verisign.com
	URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-		URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-
	registry-products/epp-sdks		registry-products/epp-sdks
	6.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process		8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process
	Organization: SWITCH		Organization: SWITCH
	Name: Registry of .CH and .LI		Name: Registry of .CH and .LI
	Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about		Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about
	DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records. These poll		DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records. These poll
	messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-		messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-
	1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are		1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are
	rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft.		rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft.
	skipping to change at page 16, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 5 ¶
	Level of maturity: Operational		Level of maturity: Operational
	Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.		Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
	Licensing: Proprietary		Licensing: Proprietary
	Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch		Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch
	URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds		URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds
	7. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	The document do not provide any security services beyond those		The document do not provide any security services beyond those
	described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP. The		described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP. The
	security considerations described in these other specifications apply		security considerations described in these other specifications apply
	to this specification as well.		to this specification as well.
	8. Acknowledgements		10. Acknowledgements
	TBD		TBD
	9. Normative References		11. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll]		[I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll]
	Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the		Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
	Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", draft-ietf-		Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", draft-ietf-
	regext-change-poll-12 (work in progress), January 2019.		regext-change-poll-12 (work in progress), January 2019.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<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>.
	[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible		[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
	Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,		Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.
	[RFC3915] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for		[RFC3915] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for
	the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,		the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 19, line 16 ¶
	Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,		Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.
	[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)		[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
	Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible		Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
	Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,		Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.
			[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>.
	[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running		[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
	Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,		Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
	RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,		RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
	Appendix A. Change History		Appendix A. Change History
	A.1. Change from 00 to 01		A.1. Change from 00 to 01
	1. Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"		1. Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
	skipping to change at page 18, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 19, line 45 ¶
	A.2. Change from 01 to 02		A.2. Change from 01 to 02
	1. Ping update		1. Ping update
	A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00		A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00
	1. Changed to regext working group draft by changing draft-gould-		1. Changed to regext working group draft by changing draft-gould-
	casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces to draft-ietf-regext-		casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces to draft-ietf-regext-
	unhandled-namespaces.		unhandled-namespaces.
			A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01
			1. Added the "Signaling Client and Server Support" section to
			describe the mechanism to signal support for the BCP by the
			client and the server.
			2. Added the IANA Considerations section with the registration of
			the unhandled namespaces XML namespace and the registration of
			the EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) in the EPP Extension
			Registry.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	James Gould		James Gould
	VeriSign, Inc.		VeriSign, Inc.
	12061 Bluemont Way		12061 Bluemont Way
	Reston, VA 20190		Reston, VA 20190
	US		US
	Email: jgould@verisign.com		Email: jgould@verisign.com
	URI: http://www.verisigninc.com		URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
End of changes. 17 change blocks.
	26 lines changed or deleted		115 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/