path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7451.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     S. Hollenbeck
Request for Comments: 7451                                 Verisign Labs
Category: Informational                                    February 2015
ISSN: 2070-1721


      Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

Abstract

   The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) includes features to add
   functionality by extending the protocol.  It does not, however,
   describe how those extensions are managed.  This document describes a
   procedure for the registration and management of extensions to EPP,
   and it specifies a format for an IANA registry to record those
   extensions.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   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.




Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Extension Specification and Registration Procedure  . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Extension Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Registration Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Required Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.2.  Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.3.  Registration Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.4.  Updating Registry Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12


1.  Introduction

   Domain name registries implement a variety of operational and
   business models.  The differences in these models make it impossible
   to develop a "one size fits all" provisioning protocol; the
   Extensible Provisioning Protocol [RFC5730] was designed to focus on a
   minimal set of common functionality with built-in extension
   capabilities that allow new features to be specified on an "as
   needed" basis.  Guidelines for extending EPP are documented in RFC
   3735 [RFC3735].

   RFCs 3735 and 5730 do not describe how extension development can be
   managed and coordinated.  This has led to a situation in which server
   operators can develop different extensions to address similar needs,
   such as the provisioning of Value Added Tax (VAT) information.
   Clients then need to support multiple extensions that serve similar
   purposes, and interoperability suffers as a result.

   An IANA registry can be used to help manage and coordinate the
   development of protocol extensions.  This document describes an IANA
   registry that will be used to coordinate the development of EPP
   extensions.









Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


2.  Extension Specification and Registration Procedure

   This section describes the format of an IANA registry and the
   procedures used to populate and manage registry entries.

2.1.  Extension Specification

   This registry uses the "Specification Required" policy described in
   RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  An English language version of the extension
   specification will be referenced from the registry, though non-
   English versions of the specification may also be provided.  Note
   that Section 2.1 of RFC 3735 [RFC3735] provides specific guidelines
   for documenting EPP extensions.

   Note that the "Specification Required" policy implies review by a
   "designated expert".  Section 3 of RFC 5226 [RFC5226] describes the
   role of designated experts and the function they perform.

2.1.1.  Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria

   A high-level description of the role of the designated expert is
   described in Section 3.2 of RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  Specific guidelines
   for the appointment of designated experts and the evaluation of EPP
   extensions are provided here.

   The IESG should appoint a small pool of individuals (perhaps 3 - 5)
   to serve as designated experts, as described in Section 3.2 of RFC
   5226 [RFC5226].  The pool should have a single administrative chair
   who is appointed by the IESG.  The designated experts should use the
   existing eppext mailing list (eppext@ietf.org) for public discussion
   of registration requests.  This implies that the mailing list should
   remain open after the work of the EPPEXT working group has concluded.

   Extensions should be evaluated for architectural soundness using the
   guidelines described in RFC 3735 [RFC3735], including the Security
   Considerations section of that document.  Expert evaluation should
   explicitly include consideration of the privacy consequences of
   proposed extensions, and, at a minimum, ensure that any privacy
   considerations are fully documented in the relevant specification(s).

   The results of the evaluation should be shared via email with the
   registrant and the eppext mailing list.  Issues discovered during the
   evaluation can be corrected by the registrant, and those corrections
   can be submitted to the designated experts until the designated
   experts explicitly decide to accept or reject the registration
   request.  The designated experts must make an explicit decision and
   that decision must be shared via email with the registrant and the




Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


   eppext mailing list.  If the specification for an extension is an
   IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by the
   designated expert.

   Designated experts should be permissive in their evaluation of
   requests to register extensions that have been implemented and
   deployed by at least one registry/registrar pair.  This implies that
   it may indeed be possible to register multiple extensions that
   provide the same functionality.  Requests to register extensions that
   have not been deployed should be evaluated with a goal of reducing
   functional duplication.  A potential registrant who submits a request
   to register a new, un-deployed extension that includes similar
   functionality to an existing, registered extension should be made
   aware of the existing extension.  The registrant should be asked to
   reconsider their request given the existence of a similar extension.
   Should they decline to do so, perceived similarity should not be a
   sufficient reason for rejection as long as all other requirements are
   met.

2.2.  Registration Procedure

   The registry contains information describing each registered
   extension.  Registry entries are created and managed by sending forms
   to IANA that describe the extension and the operation to be performed
   on the registry entry.

2.2.1.  Required Information

   Name of Extension: A case-insensitive, ASCII text string that
   contains the name of the extension specification.  Non-ASCII
   representations of the extension name can be included in the "Notes"
   described below.

   Document Status: The document status ("Informational", "Standards
   Track", etc.) of the specification document.  For documents that are
   not RFCs, this will always be "Informational".

   Reference: A publicly available reference to the specification of
   this extension.  This could be an RFC number or some other pointer to
   the document defining the extension.

   Registrant Name and Email Address: The name and email address of the
   person that is responsible for managing the registry entry.  If the
   registration is of an IETF Standards Track document, this can simply
   be listed as "IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>".






Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


   TLDs: A text string containing the top-level domain name (or domain
   names), including the preceding ".", for which the extension has been
   specified (e.g., ".org").  If there are multiple TLDs, they are given
   as a list of domain names separated by commas, (e.g. ".com", ".net").
   Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) TLDs should be specified in
   A-label [RFC5890] format.  If the extension is not associated with a
   specific top-level domain, the case-insensitive text string "Any" can
   be used to indicate that.

   IPR Disclosure: A pointer to any Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
   disclosure document(s) related to this extension, or "None" may be
   used if there are no such disclosures.  This can be an IPR disclosure
   filed with the IETF in accordance with RFC 3979 [RFC3979] as updated
   by RFC 4879 [RFC4879] if the extension is part of an IETF
   Contribution, or it can be other IPR disclosure documents identifying
   the claimed intellectual property rights and terms of use for
   extensions that are not part of an IETF Contribution.

   Status: Either "Active" or "Inactive".  The "Active" status is used
   for extensions that are currently implemented and in use.  The
   "Inactive" status is used for extensions that are not implemented or
   are otherwise not being used.

   Notes: Either "None" or other text that describes optional notes to
   be included with the registered extension.  If the Status value is
   "Inactive", text should be included to describe how and when this
   state was reached.
























Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


2.2.2.  Registration Form

   The required information must be formatted consistently using the
   following registration form.  Form field names and values may appear
   on the same line.

    -----BEGIN FORM-----
    Name of Extension:
    <text string> (quotes are optional)

    Document Status: <document status>

    Reference: <RFC number, URL, etc.>

    Registrant Name and Email Address:
    <registrant name>, <email address>

    TLDs: "Any"|<one or more TLD text strings separated by commas>

    IPR Disclosure: "None"|<URL>

    Status: "Active"|"Inactive"

    Notes: "None"|<optional text>
    -----END FORM-----


























Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


   Example form with RFC specification:

    -----BEGIN FORM-----
    Name of Extension:
    "An Extension RFC for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

    Document Status:
    Standards Track

    Reference:
    RFC XXXX

    Registrant Name and Email Address:
    IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>

    TLDs: Any

    IPR Disclosure: None

    Status: Active

    Notes: None
    -----END FORM-----

   Example form with non-RFC specification:

    -----BEGIN FORM-----
    Name of Extension:
    "An Example Extension for the .example Top-Level Domain"

    Document Status:
    Informational

    Reference:
    http://www.example.com/html/example-epp-ext.txt

    Registrant Name and Email Address:
    John Doe, jdoe@example.com

    TLDs: .example

    IPR Disclosure:
    http://www.example.com/ipr/example-epp-ext-ipr.html

    Status: Active

    Notes: None
    -----END FORM-----



Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


2.2.3.  Registration Processing

   Registrants should send each registration form to IANA with a single
   record for incorporation into the registry.  Send the form via email
   to <iana@iana.org> or complete the online form found on the IANA web
   site.  The subject line should indicate whether the enclosed form
   represents an insertion of a new record (indicated by the word
   "INSERT" in the subject line) or a replacement of an existing record
   (indicated by the word "MODIFY" in the subject line).  At no time can
   a record be deleted from the registry.  On receipt of the
   registration request, IANA will initiate review by the designated
   expert(s), who will evaluate the request using the criteria in
   Section 2.1.1 in consultation with the eppext mailing list.

2.2.4.  Updating Registry Entries

   When submitting changes to existing registry entries, include text in
   the "Notes" field of the registration form describing the change.
   Under normal circumstances, registry entries are only to be updated
   by the registrant.  If the registrant becomes unavailable or
   otherwise unresponsive, the designated expert can submit a
   registration form to IANA to update the registrant information.
   Entries can change state from "Active" to "Inactive" and back again
   as long as state-change requests conform to the processing
   requirements identified in this document.  In addition to entries
   that become "Inactive" due to a lack of implementation, entries for
   which a specification becomes consistently unavailable over time
   should be marked "Inactive" by the designated expert until the
   specification again becomes reliably available.

3.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has created the "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
   Protocol (EPP)" registry to manage EPP extensions.  This registry has
   its own heading on IANA's protocol listings.  The information to be
   registered and the procedures to be followed in populating the
   registry are described in Section 2.

   Name of registry: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
   (EPP)

     Section at http://www.iana.org/protocols:
       Registry Title: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
                       Protocol (EPP)
       Registry Name: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
                      Protocol (EPP)
       Registration Procedure: Specification Required
       Reference: this document



Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


   Required information: See Section 2.2.1.

   Review process: "Specification Required" as described in RFC 5226
   [RFC5226].

   Size, format, and syntax of registry entries: See Section 2.2.1.

   Initial assignments and reservations:

       -----BEGIN FORM-----
       Name of Extension:
       "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the
       Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

       Document Status:
       Standards Track

       Reference:
       RFC 3915

       Registrant Name and Email Address:
       IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>

       TLDs: Any

       IPR Disclosure: None

       Status: Active

       Notes: None
       -----END FORM-----




















Hollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


       -----BEGIN FORM-----
       Name of Extension:
       "E.164 Number Mapping for the
       Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

       Document Status:
       Standards Track

       Reference:
       RFC 4114

       Registrant Name and Email Address:
       IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>

       TLDs: Any

       IPR Disclosure: None

       Status: Active

       Notes: None
       -----END FORM-----

       -----BEGIN FORM-----
       Name of Extension:
       "ENUM Validation Information Mapping for the
       Extensible Provisioning Protocol"

       Document Status:
       Standards Track

       Reference:
       RFC 5076

       Registrant Name and Email Address:
       IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>

       TLDs: Any

       IPR Disclosure: None

       Status: Active

       Notes: None
       -----END FORM-----






Hollenbeck                    Informational                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


       -----BEGIN FORM-----
       Name of Extension:
       "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the
       Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

       Document Status:
       Standards Track

       Reference:
       RFC 5910

       Registrant Name and Email Address:
       IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>

       TLDs: Any

       IPR Disclosure: None

       Status: Active

       Notes: None
       -----END FORM-----

   In addition, the form used to populate and manage the registry will
   be added to the table of Protocol Registration Forms maintained by
   IANA.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations to EPP.
   However, extensions should be evaluated according to the Security
   Considerations of RFC 3735 [RFC3735].

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3979]  Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3979>.

   [RFC4879]  Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
              Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4879>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.



Hollenbeck                    Informational                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015


   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3735]  Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735, March 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.

Acknowledgements

   The information described in the registry is based on a suggestion
   posted to the provreg mailing list by Jay Daley in August 2013.

Author's Address

   Scott Hollenbeck
   Verisign Labs
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA  20190
   US

   EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.com
   URI:   http://www.verisignlabs.com/





















Hollenbeck                    Informational                    [Page 12]
^L