--- 1/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-04.txt 2020-11-15 23:13:54.571998998 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-05.txt 2020-11-15 23:13:54.616000112 -0800 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ -Network Working Group J.G. Gould +Network Working Group J. Gould Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. -Intended status: Standards Track M.C. Casanova -Expires: 24 April 2021 SWITCH - 21 October 2020 +Intended status: Standards Track M. Casanova +Expires: 19 May 2021 SWITCH + 15 November 2020 Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces - draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-04 + draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-05 Abstract 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 during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs. How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned in the response when the client does not support the required service namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of RFC 5730 poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client needs to be capable of processing all poll messages. This document defines an operational practice that enables the server to return information @@ -33,65 +33,71 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." - This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 April 2021. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 May 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Use of EPP for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4 3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 17 - 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 - A.5. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - A.6. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 7. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 7.1. Client Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 7.2. Server Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 8.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 8.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 9.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 9.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 18 + 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730], 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 during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs. How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned in the response when the client does not support the required service namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An @@ -155,20 +160,28 @@ elements of the [RFC5730] EPP , which should be a superset of the login services included in the EPP command. A server may have information associated with a specific namespace that it needs to return in the response to a client. The unhandled namespaces problem exists when the server has information, that it needs to return to the client, that is not supported by the client based on the negotiated EPP command services. 3. Use of EPP for Unhandled Namespace Data + In [RFC5730], the element is used to provide additional + error diagnostic information, including the element that + identifies the client-provided element that caused a server error + condition, and the element containing the human-readable + message that describes the reason for the error. This operational + practice extends the use of the 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 not support based on the login services, the server MAY return a successful response, with the data for each unsupported namespace moved into an [RFC5730] element. The unhandled namespace will not cause an error response, but the unhandled namespace data will instead be moved to an element, along with a reason why the unhandled namespace data could not be included in the appropriate location of the response. The element XML will not be processed by the XML processor. The element contains the following child elements: @@ -665,35 +678,79 @@ S: 2020-11-22T05:00:00.000Z S: Registry initiated update of domain. S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54322-XYZ S: S: S: -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 + element in successful responses, recording the unsupported + namespace included in the element, and recording the + unhandled namespace information included in the 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 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:unhandled-namespaces-1.0 Registrant Contact: IESG 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 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: Standards Track @@ -702,21 +759,21 @@ Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, TLDs: Any IPR Disclosure: None Status: Active Notes: None -8. Implementation Status +9. Implementation Status Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual @@ -727,41 +784,41 @@ implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". -8.1. Verisign EPP SDK +9.1. Verisign EPP SDK Organization: Verisign Inc. Name: Verisign EPP SDK Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages. Level of maturity: Development Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented. Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License Contact: jgould@verisign.com URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain- registry-products/epp-sdks -8.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process +9.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process Organization: SWITCH Name: Registry of .CH and .LI Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records. These poll 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 rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft. @@ -769,48 +826,46 @@ Level of maturity: Operational Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented. Licensing: Proprietary Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds -9. Security Considerations +10. Security Considerations The document do not provide any security services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP. The security considerations described in these other specifications apply to this specification as well. -10. Acknowledgements +11. Acknowledgements 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 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . - [RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible - Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735, - DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004, - . - [RFC3915] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915, DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004, . [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, . @@ -822,34 +877,41 @@ Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009, . [RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910, DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010, . - [RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible - Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451, - February 2015, . - [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, . [RFC8590] Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 8590, DOI 10.17487/RFC8590, May 2019, . +12.2. Informative References + + [RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible + Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004, + . + + [RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible + Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451, + February 2015, . + Appendix A. Change History A.1. Change from 00 to 01 1. Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" reference from examples. 2. removed block from example. 3. added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at Implementation Status @@ -891,20 +951,34 @@ 2. Updated Acknowledgements to match the approach taken by the RFC Editor with draft-ietf-regext-login-security. 3. Changed reference of ietf-regext-change-poll to RFC 8590. A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 1. Changed from Best Current Practice (BCP) to Standards Track based on mailing list discussion. 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 + 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 James Gould VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 United States of America Email: jgould@verisign.com URI: http://www.verisigninc.com