draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-04.txt   draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-05.txt 
Network Working Group J.G. Gould Network Working Group J. Gould
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track M.C. Casanova Intended status: Standards Track M. Casanova
Expires: 24 April 2021 SWITCH Expires: 19 May 2021 SWITCH
21 October 2020 15 November 2020
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-04 draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-05
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 tof 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 RFC unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of RFC
5730 poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the server 5730 poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the server
prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client needs prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client needs
to be capable of processing all poll messages. This document defines to be capable of processing all poll messages. This document defines
an operational practice that enables the server to return information an operational practice that enables the server to return information
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 24 April 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 May 2021.
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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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. Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. Client Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2. Server Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 17 8.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.5. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.6. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.5. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.6. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.8. Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 32
elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <greeting>, which should be a superset elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <greeting>, which should be a superset
of the login services included in the EPP <login> command. A server of the login services included in the EPP <login> command. A server
may have information associated with a specific namespace that it may have information associated with a specific namespace that it
needs to return in the response to a client. The unhandled needs to return in the response to a client. The unhandled
namespaces problem exists when the server has information, that it namespaces problem exists when the server has information, that it
needs to return to the client, that is not supported by the client needs to return to the client, that is not supported by the client
based on the negotiated EPP <login> command services. based on the negotiated EPP <login> command services.
3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data 3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data
In [RFC5730], the <extValue> element is used to provide additional
error diagnostic information, including the <value> element that
identifies the client-provided element that caused a server error
condition, and the <reason> element containing the human-readable
message that describes the reason for the error. This operational
practice extends the use of the <extValue> element for the purpose of
returning unhandled namespace information in a successful response.
When a server has data to return to the client, that the client does When a server has data to return to the client, that the client does
not support based on the login services, the server MAY return a not support based on the login services, the server MAY return a
successful response, with the data for each unsupported namespace successful response, with the data for each unsupported namespace
moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> element. The unhandled namespace moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> element. The unhandled namespace
will not cause an error response, but the unhandled namespace data will not cause an error response, but the unhandled namespace data
will instead be moved to an <extValue> element, along with a reason will instead be moved to an <extValue> element, along with a reason
why the unhandled namespace data could not be included in the why the unhandled namespace data could not be included in the
appropriate location of the response. The <extValue> element XML appropriate location of the response. The <extValue> element XML
will not be processed by the XML processor. The <extValue> element will not be processed by the XML processor. The <extValue> element
contains the following child elements: contains the following child elements:
skipping to change at page 15, line 37 skipping to change at page 15, line 37
S: <qDate>2020-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</qDate> S: <qDate>2020-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</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>
7. IANA Considerations 7. Implementation Considerations
7.1. XML Namespace There are implementation considerations for the client and the server
to help address the risk of the client ignoring unhandled namespace
information included in an EPP response that is needed to meet
technical, policy, or legal requirements.
7.1. Client Implementation Considerations
To reduce the likelihood of a client receiving unhandled namespace
information, the client should consider the following:
1. Ensure that the login services is accurate with what is supported
by the client. If there are gaps between the services supported
by the client and the login services included in the login
command, the client may receive unhandled namespace information
that the client could have supported.
2. Support all of the services included in the server greeting
services that may be included in an EPP response, including the
poll queue responses. The client should evaluate the gaps
between the greeting services and the login services provided in
the login command to identify extensions that need to be
supported.
3. Proactively monitor for unhandled namespace information in the
EPP responses, by looking for the inclusion of the <extValue>
element in successful responses, recording the unsupported
namespace included in the <reason> element, and recording the
unhandled namespace information included in the <value> element
for later processing. The unhandled namespace can be implemented
by the client to ensure that information is processed fully in
future EPP responses.
7.2. Server Implementation Considerations
To assist the clients in recognizing unhandled namespaces, the server
should consider the following:
1. Monitor for returning unhandled namespace information to clients
and report it to the clients out-of-band to EPP so the clients
can add support for the unhandled namespaces.
2. Look for the unhandled namespace support in the login services
when returning optional unhandled namespace information in
General EPP Responses.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. XML Namespace
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI
assignment is requested of IANA: assignment is requested of IANA:
Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace: Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
7.2. EPP Extension Registry 8.2. EPP Extension Registry
The EPP operational practice described in this document should be The EPP operational practice described in this document should be
registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in
[RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows: [RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows:
Name of Extension: "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Name of Extension: "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled
Namespaces" Namespaces"
Document status: Standards Track Document status: Standards Track
skipping to change at page 16, line 28 skipping to change at page 17, line 28
Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, <iesg@ietf.org> Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active Status: Active
Notes: None Notes: None
8. Implementation Status 9. 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 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
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".
8.1. Verisign EPP SDK 9.1. 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
8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process 9.2. 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 17, line 47 skipping to change at page 18, line 47
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
9. Security Considerations 10. 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.
10. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions: Scott Hollenbeck, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcel Parodi. and suggestions: Thomas Corte, Scott Hollenbeck, Patrick Mevzek, and
Marcel Parodi.
11. Normative References 12. References
12.1. Normative References
[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, [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
<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>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 49
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>.
[RFC8590] Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the [RFC8590] Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 8590, Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 8590,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8590, May 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8590, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8590>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8590>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.
[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>.
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"
reference from examples. reference from examples.
2. removed <extension></extension> block from example. 2. removed <extension></extension> block from example.
3. added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at 3. added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at
Implementation Status Implementation Status
skipping to change at page 20, line 26 skipping to change at page 21, line 26
2. Updated Acknowledgements to match the approach taken by the RFC 2. Updated Acknowledgements to match the approach taken by the RFC
Editor with draft-ietf-regext-login-security. Editor with draft-ietf-regext-login-security.
3. Changed reference of ietf-regext-change-poll to RFC 8590. 3. Changed reference of ietf-regext-change-poll to RFC 8590.
A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04
1. Changed from Best Current Practice (BCP) to Standards Track based 1. Changed from Best Current Practice (BCP) to Standards Track based
on mailing list discussion. on mailing list discussion.
2. Revised the dates in the examples to be more up-to-date. 2. Revised the dates in the examples to be more up-to-date.
A.8. Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05
1. Based on feedback from Thomas Corte, added a description of the
<extValue> element in RFC 5730 and it being extended to support
returning unhandled namespace information.
2. Based on feedback from Thomas Corte, added a Implementation
Considerations section to cover client and server implementation
recommendations such as monitoring unhandled namespaces in the
server to report to the clients out-of-band and monitoring for
responses containing unhanded namespace information in the client
to proactively add support for the unhandled namespaces.
3. Moved RFC 3735 and RFC 7451 to informative references to address
down reference errors in idnits.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
James Gould James Gould
VeriSign, Inc. VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way 12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190 Reston, VA 20190
United States of America United States of America
Email: jgould@verisign.com Email: jgould@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 122 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/