Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     S. HollenbeckRequest for Comments: 7451                                 Verisign LabsCategory: Informational                                    February 2015ISSN: 2070-1721Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning ProtocolAbstract   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; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://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 toBCP 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]

RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  Extension Specification and Registration Procedure  . . . . .32.1.  Extension Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.1.1.  Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . .32.2.  Registration Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.2.1.  Required Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.2.2.  Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.2.3.  Registration Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82.2.4.  Updating Registry Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121.  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 inRFC3735 [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]

RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 20152.  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 inRFC 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   thatSection 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 inSection 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 ofRFC5226 [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 inRFC 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 theHollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 3]

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]

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 withRFC 3979 [RFC3979] as updated   byRFC 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]

RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 20152.2.2.  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]

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]

RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 20152.2.3.  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 inSection 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 inSection 2.   Name of registry: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol   (EPP)     Section athttp://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 documentHollenbeck                    Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 7451                 EPP Extension Registry            February 2015   Required information: SeeSection 2.2.1.   Review process: "Specification Required" as described inRFC 5226   [RFC5226].   Size, format, and syntax of registry entries: SeeSection 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]

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]

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 ofRFC 3735 [RFC3735].5.  References5.1.  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 inRFC 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]

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]