| Registration Protocols Extensions | R. Carney |
| Internet-Draft | J. Snitker |
| Intended status: Standards Track | GoDaddy Inc. |
| Expires: April 14, 2019 | October 11, 2018 |
Validate Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
draft-ietf-regext-validate-04
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping for the validation of contact and eligibility data.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 April 14, 2019.
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 (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.
This document describes a Validate mapping for version 1.0 of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP). This EPP mapping specifies a flexible schema by which EPP clients and servers can reliably validate contact and eligibility data.
With the increased number of restrictions on contacts and required data points (license, ids, etc.) to register a domain name, a way to validate the data points prior to issuing a transform command is becoming more important.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the character case presented in order to develop a conforming implementation.
"validate" is used as an abbreviation for "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:validate-0.2". The XML namespace prefix "validate" is used, but implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol.
(Note to RFC Editor: remove the following paragraph before publication as an RFC.)
The XML namespace prefix above contains a version number, specifically "0.2". This version number will increment with successive versions of this document, and will reach 1.0 if and when this document is published as an RFC. This permits clients to distinguish which version of the extension a server has implemented.
A EPP validation object has attributes and associated values that can be viewed by the client. This section describes each attribute type in detail.
Key Value provides a flexible mechanism to share data between the client and the server. The <validate:kv> element defines the data, with two required simple attributes, key and value, and an optional contactType attribute for specificity in the response, more details below.
The <validate:id> element is used in two different scenarios.
First if the <validate:id> is passed by itself with no other elements (e.g. >validate:postalInfo>) then the client intent is that this is an already existing contact and the server should handle the request by looking up the associated data in its system and using that data to validate against.
Second scenario would be if the request includes additional elements then the server should treat the <validate:id> as a temporary contact handle and should not perform a look on the contact but use the data that is passed in the request to validate against.
These elements are intended to mirror the definitions in [RFC5733].
A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found in [RFC5730]. The command mappings described here are specifically for the Validate Extension.
EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check> to determine if an object is known to the server, <info> to retrieve detailed information associated with an object, and <transfer> to retrieve object transfer status information.
The EPP <check> command is used to validate a list of contact information. The <check> command MUST contain a <validate:check> element that identifies the validate namespace. The <validate:check> element contains the following child elements:
The <validate:contact> element has two required attributes: contactType, which describes the role (registrant, admin, tech, billing, etc.) of the contact that the contact should be validated for; and tld, which provides the top level domain to be validated against. The <validate:contact> element contains the following child elements:
The following is an example <check> command where "sh8013" and "sh8014" are both "new" contacts and "sh8012" is an existing contact on the server.
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
C: xmlns:validate="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:validate-0.2"
C: xmlns:contact="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <check>
C: <validate:check>
C: <validate:contact contactType="registrant" tld="COM">
C: <validate:id>sh8013</validate:id>
C: <validate:postalInfo type="int">
C: <contact:name>John Doe</contact:name>
C: <contact:org>Example Inc.</contact:org>
C: <contact:addr>
C: <contact:street>123 Example Dr.</contact:street>
C: <contact:street>Suite 100</contact:street>
C: <contact:city>Dulles</contact:city>
C: <contact:sp>VA</contact:sp>
C: <contact:pc>20166-6503</contact:pc>
C: <contact:cc>US</contact:cc>
C: </contact:addr>
C: </validate:postalInfo>
C: <validate:voice>+1.7035555555</validate:voice>
C: <validate:fax>+1.7035555556</validate:fax>
C: <validate:email>jdoe@example.com</validate:email>
C: <validate:authInfo>
C: <contact:pw>2fooBAR</contact:pw>
C: </validate:authInfo>
C: <validate:kv key="VAT" value="1234567890"/>
C: </validate:contact>
C: <validate:contact contactType="tech" tld="COM">
C: <validate:id>sh8012</validate:id>
C: </validate:contact>
C: <validate:contact contactType="admin" tld="COM">
C: <validate:id>sh8014</validate:id>
C: <validate:postalInfo type="int">
C: <contact:name>John Doe</contact:name>
C: <contact:org>Example Inc.</contact:org>
C: <contact:addr>
C: <contact:street>123 Example Dr.</contact:street>
C: <contact:street>Suite 100</contact:street>
C: <contact:city>Dulles</contact:city>
C: <contact:sp>VA</contact:sp>
C: <contact:pc>20166-6503</contact:pc>
C: <contact:cc>US</contact:cc>
C: </contact:addr>
C: </validate:postalInfo>
C: <validate:voice>+1.7035555555</validate:voice>
C: <validate:fax>+1.7035555556</validate:fax>
C: <validate:email>jdoe@example.com</validate:email>
C: <validate:authInfo>
C: <contact:pw>2fooBAR</contact:pw>
C: </validate:authInfo>
C: </validate:contact>
C: <validate:contact contactType="billing" tld="COM">
C: <validate:id>sh8014</validate:id>
C: <validate:postalInfo type="int">
C: <contact:name>John Doe</contact:name>
C: <contact:org>Example Inc.</contact:org>
C: <contact:addr>
C: <contact:street>123 Example Dr.</contact:street>
C: <contact:street>Suite 100</contact:street>
C: <contact:city>Dulles</contact:city>
C: <contact:sp>VA</contact:sp>
C: <contact:pc>20166-6503</contact:pc>
C: <contact:cc>US</contact:cc>
C: </contact:addr>
C: </validate:postalInfo>
C: <validate:voice>+1.7035555555</validate:voice>
C: <validate:fax>+1.7035555556</validate:fax>
C: <validate:email>jdoe@example.com</validate:email>
C: <validate:authInfo>
C: <contact:pw>2fooBAR</contact:pw>
C: </validate:authInfo>
C: </validate:contact>
C: </validate:check>
C: </check>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
When the server receives a <check> command with a <validate:contact> element that contains only a <validate:id> element the server will process this as an existing contact. If the contact does not exist the server MUST return an EPP error response for that specific <validate:contact>.
When a <check> command has been processed succesfully, the EPP <resData> element MUST contain a child <validate:chkData> element that identifies the validate namespace. The <validate:chkData> element MUST contain a <validate:cd> element for each <validate:check> element contained in the <check> command. The <validate:cd> element contains the following child elements:
The following is an example of the <check> response.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <validate:chkData
S: xmlns:validate="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:validate-0.2">
S: <validate:cd>
S: <validate:id>sh8013</validate:id>
S: <validate:response>1000</validate:response>
S: </validate:cd>
S: <validate:cd>
S: <validate:id>sh8014</validate:id>
S: <validate:response>2306</validate:response>
S: <validate:kv key="contact:city" value="City not valid
S: for state."/>
S: <validate:kv contactType="Admin" key="contact:cc"
S: value="Invalid country code for admin, must be mx."/>
S: <validate:kv contactType="Billing" key="VAT" value="VAT
S: required for Billing contact."/>
S: </validate:cd>
S: </validate:chkData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-ZYX</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Info semantics do not apply to validate objects, so there is no mapping defined for the EPP <info> command.
Transfer semantics do not apply to validate objects, so there is no mapping defined for the EPP <transfer> command.
EPP provides five commands to transform objects: <create> to create an instance of an object with a server, <delete> to remove an instance of an object from a server, <renew> to extend the validity period of an object, <transfer> to manage changes in client sponsorship of an object, and <update> to change information.
Create semantics do not apply to validate objects, so there is no mapping defined for the EPP <create> command.
Delete semantics do not apply to validate objects, so there is no mapping defined for the EPP <delete> command.
Renew semantics do not apply to validate objects, so there is no mapping defined for the EPP <renew> command.
Transfer semantics do not apply to validate objects, so there is no mapping defined for the EPP <transfer> command.
Update semantics do not apply to validate objects, so there is no mapping defined for the EPP <update> command.
One schema is presented here that is the EPP Validate schema.
The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation of the object mapping suitable for automated validation of EPP XML instances. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration purposes.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:validate-0.2"
xmlns:validate="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:validate-0.2"
xmlns:epp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
xmlns:eppcom="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"
xmlns:contact="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<annotation>
<documentation>
Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
Validate Object
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- Import common element types. -->
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"
schemaLocation="eppcom-1.0.xsd"/>
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
schemaLocation="epp-1.0.xsd"/>
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0"
schemaLocation="contact-1.0.xsd"/>
<!--
Child elements of the <check> command.
-->
<element name="check" type="validate:checkType"/>
<complexType name="checkType">
<sequence>
<element name="contact"
type="validate:validateContactType"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="validateContactType">
<sequence>
<element name="id"
type="eppcom:clIDType" />
<element name="postalInfo"
type="contact:postalInfoType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="2" />
<element name="voice"
type="contact:e164Type" minOccurs="0" />
<element name="fax"
type="contact:e164Type" minOccurs="0" />
<element name="email"
type="eppcom:minTokenType" minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="authInfo"
type="contact:authInfoType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="kv"
type="validate:kvType" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
</sequence>
<attribute name="contactType" type="eppcom:labelType"
use="required"/>
<attribute name="tld"
type="eppcom:labelType" use="required"/>
</complexType>
<complexType name="kvType">
<attribute name="contactType"
type="eppcom:labelType" use="optional" />
<attribute name="key"
type="validate:keyType" use="required" />
<attribute name="value"
type="validate:valueType" use="required" />
</complexType>
<simpleType name="keyType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1" />
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<simpleType name="valueType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="0" />
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!--
Child elements of the <check> response.
-->
<element name="chkData" type="validate:chkDataType" />
<complexType name="chkDataType">
<sequence>
<element name="cd"
type="validate:resCreateDataType" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="resCreateDataType">
<sequence>
<element name="id"
type="eppcom:clIDType" />
<element name="response"
type="epp:resultCodeType" />
<element name="kv"
type="validate:kvType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
</sequence>
</complexType>
</schema>
END
The mapping described in this document do not provide any security services beyond those described by EPP and protocol layers used by EPP. The security considerations described in these other specifications apply to this specification as well.
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].
Registration request for the validate namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:validate-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the validate schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:validate-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to [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 [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 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.
According to [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".
Add implementation details once available.
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback and suggestions:
Removed the <validate:cd> element from the <check> command, moving all sub-elements to the <validate:contact> element to simplify. Also removed the <disclose> element as it was not needed in this context. Also updated references to current versions of documents.
Corrected some formatting issues.
Corrected some formatting issues.
After review and broad feedback, extensive changes have been made transforming the original document from a standalone extension command to using the <check> command and response framework. Stubbed in an Implementation section for later documentation.
Updated miscellaneous verbiage to reflect the change from an extension and changed to ietf naming as REGEXT WG will assume this work.
| [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. |
| [RFC5730] | Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009. |
| [RFC5733] | Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, August 2009. |
| [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. |
| [RFC8174] | Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017. |