draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-04.txt   draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-05.txt 
Network Working Group J. Gould Network Working Group J. Gould
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track October 8, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track November 21, 2018
Expires: April 11, 2019 Expires: May 25, 2019
Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP) (EPP)
draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-04 draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-05
Abstract Abstract
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
extension for including a verification code for marking the data for extension for including a verification code for marking the data for
a transform command as being verified by a 3rd party, which is a transform command as being verified by a 3rd party, which is
referred to as the Verification Service Provider (VSP). The referred to as the Verification Service Provider (VSP). The
verification code is digitally signed by the VSP using XML Signature verification code is digitally signed by the VSP using XML Signature
and is "base64" encoded. The XML Signature includes the VSP signer and is "base64" encoded. The XML Signature includes the VSP signer
certificate, so the server can verify that the verification code certificate, so the server can verify that the verification code
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 April 11, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
Appendix B. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Appendix B. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.5. Change from 04 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.5. Change from 04 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.6. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.6. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.7. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.7. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.8. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.8. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.9. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.9. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.10. Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730]. This mapping, an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730]. This mapping, an
extension to EPP object mappings like the EPP domain name mapping extension to EPP object mappings like the EPP domain name mapping
[RFC5731], EPP host mapping [RFC5732], and EPP contact mapping [RFC5731], EPP host mapping [RFC5732], and EPP contact mapping
[RFC5733], can be used to pass a verification code to one of the EPP [RFC5733], can be used to pass a verification code to one of the EPP
transform commands. The domain name object is used for examples in transform commands. The domain name object is used for examples in
skipping to change at page 12, line 4 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
</extension> </extension>
<clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID> <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
</command> </command>
</epp> </epp>
2.2. Verification Profile 2.2. Verification Profile
A Verification Profile defines the set of verification code types, A Verification Profile defines the set of verification code types,
the commands that the verification code types are required, the commands that the verification code types are required,
supported, or not supported, and the grace period by which the supported, or not supported, and the grace period by which the
verification code types MUST be set. A server MAY support many verification code types MUST be set. It is up to server policy what
verification profiles, each with a unique name and a unique action to take if the verification code type is not set by the grace
verification policy that is implemented by the server. Each client period. A server MAY support many verification profiles, each with a
MAY have zero or more server assigned verification profiles that will unique name and a unique verification policy that is implemented by
enforce the required verification policies. Most likely a client the server. Each client MAY have zero or more server assigned
will be assigned zero or one server assigned verification profile, verification profiles that will enforce the required verification
but overlapping profiles is possible. Overlapping verification policies. Most likely a client will be assigned zero or one server
profiles MUST be treated as a logical "and" of the policies by the assigned verification profile, but overlapping profiles is possible.
server. If no verification profile is assigned to the client, no Overlapping verification profiles MUST be treated as a logical "and"
additional verification is required by the client. of the policies by the server. If no verification profile is
assigned to the client, no additional verification is required by the
client.
3. EPP Command Mapping 3. EPP Command Mapping
A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730]. in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730].
3.1. EPP Query Commands 3.1. EPP Query Commands
EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check> EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check>
to determine if an object is known to the server, <info> to retrieve to determine if an object is known to the server, <info> to retrieve
skipping to change at page 34, line 49 skipping to change at page 35, line 5
It is RECOMMENDED that signed codes do not include white-spaces It is RECOMMENDED that signed codes do not include white-spaces
between the XML elements in order to mitigate risks of invalidating between the XML elements in order to mitigate risks of invalidating
the digital signature when transferring of signed codes between the digital signature when transferring of signed codes between
applications takes place. applications takes place.
Use of XML canonicalization SHOULD be used when generating the signed Use of XML canonicalization SHOULD be used when generating the signed
code. SHA256/RSA-SHA256 SHOULD be used for digesting and signing. code. SHA256/RSA-SHA256 SHOULD be used for digesting and signing.
The size of the RSA key SHOULD be at least 2048 bits. The size of the RSA key SHOULD be at least 2048 bits.
The Verification Service Provider (VSP) MUST store the verification
data in compliance with the applicable privacy laws and regulations.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996, Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 36, line 28 skipping to change at page 36, line 28
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements Appendix A. 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: and suggestions:
o Gurshabad Grover o Gurshabad Grover
o Rick Wilhelm
Appendix B. Change History Appendix B. Change History
B.1. Change from 00 to 01 B.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Fixed pendingComplaince and complaint to pendingCompliance and 1. Fixed pendingComplaince and complaint to pendingCompliance and
compliant in text. compliant in text.
2. Fixed verificaton to verification. 2. Fixed verificaton to verification.
B.2. Change from 01 to 02 B.2. Change from 01 to 02
skipping to change at page 37, line 35 skipping to change at page 37, line 35
1. Added the Implementation Status section. 1. Added the Implementation Status section.
2. Revised the sentence "The data verified by the VSP MUST be stored 2. Revised the sentence "The data verified by the VSP MUST be stored
by the VSP along with the generated verification code to address by the VSP along with the generated verification code to address
any compliance issues." to "The VSP MUST store the proof of any compliance issues." to "The VSP MUST store the proof of
verification and the generated verification code; and MAY store verification and the generated verification code; and MAY store
the verified data.", and added text to the Security the verified data.", and added text to the Security
Considerations section associated with storing the verification Considerations section associated with storing the verification
data, based on feedback from Gurshabad Grover. data, based on feedback from Gurshabad Grover.
Author's Address B.10. Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05
1. Removed the "The Verification Service Provider (VSP) MUST store
the verification data in compliance with the applicable privacy
laws and regulations." sentence from the Security Considerations,
based on feedback from Rick Wilhelm and agreement from Gurshabad
Grover.
2. Added the sentence "It is up to server policy what action to take
if the verification code type is not set by the grace period." to
section 2.2 "Verification Profile", to clarify what happens when
the verification code grace period expires. This is based on an
issue raised by Gurshabad Grover at the IETF-103 REGEXT meeting.
Author's Address
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.verisign.com URI: http://www.verisign.com
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 31 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/