--- 1/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-04.txt 2018-11-21 07:14:29.527003430 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-05.txt 2018-11-21 07:14:29.599005157 -0800 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Network Working Group J. Gould Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. -Intended status: Standards Track October 8, 2018 -Expires: April 11, 2019 +Intended status: Standards Track November 21, 2018 +Expires: May 25, 2019 Verification Code Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) - draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-04 + draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode-05 Abstract This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension for including a verification code for marking the data for a transform command as being verified by a 3rd party, which is referred to as the Verification Service Provider (VSP). The verification code is digitally signed by the VSP using XML Signature and is "base64" encoded. The XML Signature includes the VSP signer certificate, so the server can verify that the verification code @@ -27,21 +27,21 @@ 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 http://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 April 11, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -87,21 +87,21 @@ Appendix B. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 B.5. Change from 04 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.6. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.7. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 B.8. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . . . . . . 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 1. Introduction This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730]. This mapping, an extension to EPP object mappings like the EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731], EPP host mapping [RFC5732], and EPP contact mapping [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 @@ -519,30 +519,32 @@ ABC-12345 2.2. Verification Profile A Verification Profile defines the set of verification code types, the commands that the verification code types are required, supported, or not supported, and the grace period by which the - verification code types MUST be set. A server MAY support many - verification profiles, each with a unique name and a unique - verification policy that is implemented by the server. Each client - MAY have zero or more server assigned verification profiles that will - enforce the required verification policies. Most likely a client - will be assigned zero or one server assigned verification profile, - but overlapping profiles is possible. Overlapping verification - profiles MUST be treated as a logical "and" of the policies by the - server. If no verification profile is assigned to the client, no - additional verification is required by the client. + verification code types MUST be set. It is up to server policy what + action to take if the verification code type is not set by the grace + period. A server MAY support many verification profiles, each with a + unique name and a unique verification policy that is implemented by + the server. Each client MAY have zero or more server assigned + verification profiles that will enforce the required verification + policies. Most likely a client will be assigned zero or one server + assigned verification profile, but overlapping profiles is possible. + Overlapping verification profiles MUST be treated as a logical "and" + 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 A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730]. 3.1. EPP Query Commands EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: to determine if an object is known to the server, to retrieve @@ -1499,23 +1501,20 @@ It is RECOMMENDED that signed codes do not include white-spaces between the XML elements in order to mitigate risks of invalidating the digital signature when transferring of signed codes between applications takes place. Use of XML canonicalization SHOULD be used when generating the signed code. SHA256/RSA-SHA256 SHOULD be used for digesting and signing. 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 8.1. Normative References [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate @@ -1570,20 +1569,21 @@ [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . Appendix A. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback and suggestions: o Gurshabad Grover + o Rick Wilhelm Appendix B. Change History B.1. Change from 00 to 01 1. Fixed pendingComplaince and complaint to pendingCompliance and compliant in text. 2. Fixed verificaton to verification. B.2. Change from 01 to 02 @@ -1622,20 +1622,32 @@ 1. Added the Implementation Status section. 2. Revised the sentence "The data verified by the VSP MUST be stored by the VSP along with the generated verification code to address any compliance issues." to "The VSP MUST store the proof of verification and the generated verification code; and MAY store the verified data.", and added text to the Security Considerations section associated with storing the verification 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 VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 US Email: jgould@verisign.com URI: http://www.verisign.com