Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary
draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary
Network Working Group H. Flanagan, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Crocker
Intended status: Standards Track Edgemoor Research Institute
Expires: 27 April 2023 24 October 2022
Registration Data Dictionary
draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03
Abstract
Multiple applications related to the registration of names and other
identifiers are built around a list of data elements. There is
currently no unified public list of these data elements, nor is there
an organized and independent change control process. This document
compiles the multiple similar but not quite identical lists of data
elements into a neutral Data Dictionary to be maintained as an
independent IANA Registry. The Data Dictionary defines data elements
but does not specify which ones are to be used in any particular
application; the Data Dictionary is policy-neutral.
Status of This Memo
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 27 April 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Data Element Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Element name: Domain Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Element name: Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Element name: NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Element name: Registration Creation Date . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Element name: Registration Expiration Date . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Element name: Registration Updated Date . . . . . . . . . 5
2.7. Element name: Registration Transfer Date . . . . . . . . 5
2.8. Element name: Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.9. Element name: Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.10. Element name: Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.11. Element name: Personal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.12. Element name: Status & Locks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.13. Element name: Source & Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.14. Element name: User Account ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.15. Element name: Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.16. Element name: Org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.17. Element name: Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.18. Element name: City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.19. Element name: State/Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.20. Element name: Postal code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.21. Element name: Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.22. Element name: Phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.23. Element name: Phone ext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.24. Element name: Fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.25. Element name: Fax ext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.26. Element name: Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.27. Element name: Email_or_phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.28. Element name: Registry UniqueID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Report Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Initial assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Data Element Definition in IANA Registry . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Draft Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The Registration Data Dictionary provides a common set of names and
definitions for data element that may be used in any registration
protocol, including the DNS. The dictionary is intended to be
inclusive and not obligatory. That is, the existence of a data
element in this dictionary does not imply the data element must be
used or recognized in any particular protocol. The items in this
dictionary should represent the union for what is in existing
relevant protocols and should prevent divergence in new protocols.
We also expect that each application or protocol may have additional
requirements specific to the application or protocol.
Such additional requirements should be documented as part of the
application or protocol specification.
The data elements in this dictionary include the metadata regarding
the registration, the detailed status of a registration, details for
each of the contacts, and the account details and payment history.
The proposed IANA registry lists standard data elements; each element
will be versioned in the registry.
We expect the Registration Data Dictionary to evolve to meet the
needs of various applications. With the exception of correction of
errors, we expect the changes to the Registration Data Dictionary to
be additions as opposed to deletions or changes.
[Comment: We are looking for additional authors and contributors to
add to and improve the data dictionary, keeping in line with the RFC
Series Editor statement on authorship. https://www.rfc-
editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2015-May/008869.html]
1.1. Requirements Language
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.
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
2. Data Element Specification
Each data element is a single unit of information that can be
collected and compared during the registration process. The primary
purposes of the IANA registry of data elements are to ensure that
each data element is assigned a unique name and the syntax of each
data element is specified.
Each data element is assigned to an element type to organize the
taxonomy of the data dictionary.
The name of the data element MUST be unique and this characteristic
MUST be enforced by the registry. The character encoding
recommendation for data elements is specified in Section 3.
The subsections below comprise an initial list of known data elements
commonly being used in the templates. The title of the subsection is
the data element name for the data element. The combination of data
element type and data element name MUST be unique and MUST be
processed as case insensitive in the IANA registry.
Note that the legal definition of any of the terms used in the data
dictionary, such as 'personally identifiable information' or 'legal
person', are to be determined locally. The organization using this
dictionary will record their interpretation in the appropriate
element.
2.1. Element name: Domain Name
This is the name of the object being registered, e.g., the domain
name.[RFC5890]
See also "domain name" in [RFC8499].
2.2. Element name: Registry
The name of the registry.
See also "Registry" in [RFC8499].
2.3. Element name: NS
The authoritative name server for the registration.[RFC1034]
See also "Authoritative server" in [RFC8499]
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
2.4. Element name: Registration Creation Date
The date and time of the object's creation.
2.5. Element name: Registration Expiration Date
The date and time identifying the end of the registration period.
2.6. Element name: Registration Updated Date
The date and time of the most recent modification of the registration
data.
2.7. Element name: Registration Transfer Date
The date and time of the most recent successful registration
transfer.
2.8. Element name: Protection
A description of the rulesets used to offer different levels of
protection to the registrant. This attribute indicates whether the
registration requires extra versus normal protection. In the case of
domain name registration, this attribute can be used flag the need
for additional protection for celebrities, politicians, at risk NGOs,
etc.
2.9. Element name: Nexus
Describes whether the registration is from someone in the correct
group, region, or other qualification required for the registration.
2.10. Element name: Person
Record of whether this registration is for a legal or a natural
person.
2.11. Element name: Personal
Record of whether this registration may contains personally
identifiable information, based on the interpretation of applicable
laws by the registrar or registration authority.
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
2.12. Element name: Status & Locks
Examples include the EPP (Section 2.3 of [RFC5731]) and RDAP
(Section 10.2.2 of [RFC9083]) codes (ex: clientTransferProhibited)
that describe the current state of a registered object and the
protocol actions that can (or cannot) be performed on the registered
object. A registered object MAY be associated with multiple status
values. Other managed objects, including name server and contact
objects, can also have status and lock values.
2.13. Element name: Source & Method
The back pointer from registry to registrant. When registration
information is supplied from another source, this field names that
source.
2.14. Element name: User Account ID
This is a customer ID at the registrar, reseller, or privacy/proxy
provider, respectively.
2.15. Element name: Name
Individual name.
2.16. Element name: Org
Organization name.
2.17. Element name: Street
Physical street address.
2.18. Element name: City
Postal city address.
2.19. Element name: State/Province
Postal state or province address.
2.20. Element name: Postal code
Postal code.
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
2.21. Element name: Country
Country code identifier.
2.22. Element name: Phone
Telephone number.
2.23. Element name: Phone ext
This field is intended to represent an "extension" within the phone
number to reach the specific person or role desk telephone,
appropriate queue or mailbox after successfully dialing the Phone
element.
2.24. Element name: Fax
Fax telephone number.
2.25. Element name: Fax ext
This field is an "extension" within a phone tree or PBX that is
necessary to connect to a fax machine after successfully dialing the
fax element.
2.26. Element name: Email
Email address.
2.27. Element name: Email_or_phone
There is a requirement that either the phone or email element have
been confirmed reachable, which this field is intended to represent.
2.28. Element name: Registry UniqueID
This field represents server-unique identifiers assigned to entities,
such as clients and contacts.
3. IANA Considerations
This section describes the format of the IANA Registration Report
Registry, which has two tables described below, and the procedures
used to populate and manage the registry entries.
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
3.1. Report Specification
This registry uses the "Specification Required" policy described in
[RFC8126]. An English language version of the extension
specification is required in the registry, though non-English
versions of the specification may also be provided.
The "Specification Required" policy implies review by a "designated
expert". Section 5.2 of RFC 8126 describes the role of designated
experts and the function they perform.
3.1.1. Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria
A high-level description of the role of the designated expert is
described in Section 5.2 of RFC 8126. Specific guidelines for the
appointment of designated experts and the evaluation of a new data
element is provided here.
The IESG SHOULD appoint a small pool of individuals (perhaps 3 - 5)
to serve as designated experts, as described in Section 5.2 of RFC
8126. The pool should have a single administrative chair who is
appointed by the IESG. The designated experts should use the
existing regext mailing list (regext@ietf.org) for public discussion
of registration requests. This implies that the mailing list should
remain open after the work of the REGEXT working group has concluded.
The results of the evaluation should be shared via email with the
registrant and the regext 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
regext mailing list. If the specification for a data element or
report is an IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by
the designated expert.
Designated experts should be permissive in their evaluation of
requests for data elements and reports that have been implemented and
deployed by at least one registry. This implies that it may indeed
be possible to register multiple data elements or reports that
provide the same functionality. Requests to register data elements
or reports that have not been deployed should be evaluated with a
goal of reducing duplication. A potential registrant who submits a
request to register a new data element or report that includes
similar functionality to existing data elements or reports should be
made aware of the existing data elements and reports. The registrant
should be asked to reconsider their request given the existence of
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
similar data elements or reports. Should they decline to do so,
perceived similarity should not be a sufficient reason for rejection
as long as all other requirements are met.
3.1.2. Registration Procedure
The registry contains information describing each registered data
element or report. Registry entries are created and managed by
sending forms to IANA that describe the data element or report for
the registry entry.
3.1.2.1. Required Information
The required information must be formatted consistently using the
following registration form. Form field names and values may appear
on the same line.
3.1.2.1.1. Data Element Definition
Name of data element type
MUST be unique within the registry, enforced to be unique, and MUST
be processed as case insensitive
Name of data element
MUST be unique within the registry, enforced to be unique, and MUST
be processed as case insensitive
Reference document
MUST define the data element, SHOULD be a URL to a RFC, and SHOULD
include the section number (or other detailed internal document
reference), MAY be a URL to any document available under equivalent
terms
Registrant
Will be IESG for initial entries and all Standards Track
specifications; otherwise as specified by the registran
Status
MUST be one of active, inactive, or unknown
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
3.1.2.2. 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) if appropriate, who will evaluate the request using the
criteria in Section 3.1.1 in consultation with the regext mailing
list.
3.1.2.3. Updating Report Definition 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.
3.2. Initial assignments
3.2.1. Data Element Definition in IANA Registry
--- BEGIN FORM ---
Name of data element:
Name
Reference:
This RFC Section 2.1.
Registrant:
IESG, iesg@ietf.org
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
Status:
Active
--- END FORM ---
--- BEGIN FORM ---
Name of data element:
............
Reference:
This RFC Section $2.n
Registrant:
IESG, iesg@ietf.org
Status:
Active
--- END FORM ---
4. Security Considerations
This specification does not consider the issues of distribution or
access to the reports that are created and thus does not introduce
any new security oncerns that are not already present in the local
environment in which the report is created.
A security principle to keep in mind as new reports are developed is
that it is considered a bad practice to report or disclose security
information. In the case of the registration system upon which this
reporting mechanism is based, the authInfo code is a specific example
of a data element that SHOULD NOT be included in a report.
5. Privacy Considerations
This specification defines a mechanism for policy comparison based on
data in a registration system. Some of that data is likely to be
considered personally identifiable information (PII) and thus would
be subject to privacy protection according to an applicable privacy
regulation. It is outside the scope of this specification to address
those specific concerns. Implementors are urged to consider these
issues with their local legal authority and develop appropriate
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
requirements for their work.
6. Internationalization Considerations
The character encoding for the file contents MUST use UTF-8.
Throughout this document A-LABEL is indicated as a SHOULD and that
MUST be interpreted as follows. All name labels MUST be in A-LABEL
format if it is possible to represent it as an A-LABEL, otherwise
U-LABEL MAY be used.
7. Draft Change Log
-03: Editorial updates to abstract, introduction
-03: Added definitions to Protection, Nexus, Person, Personal, Source
and Method, User Account ID
-03: Removed Payment History, Transaction History, and Reserved
elements.
-02: Removed all format syntax guidance.
-02: Removed specific references to domain names and DNS where
possible.
-02: Revised the Introduction.
-01: Updated abstract to clarify that this draft does not intend to
set policy.
-01: Updated definitions in 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 to remove
normative reference to the EPP spec.
-01: Updated 2. Data Element specification to note local
interpretation expected for any legal definitions.
-01: Added TBD to policy-related items, all data-related elements wrt
format.
-01: Moved several items from informative to normative references.
8. Acknowledgements
With many thanks to James Galvin and Rod Rasmussen for their advice
and feedback on this data dictionary.
9. References
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
9.1. Informative References
[RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[RFC9083] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>.
9.2. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Heather Flanagan (editor)
Edgemoor Research Institute
Email: hlf@sphericalcowconsulting.com
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Registration Data Dictionary October 2022
Steve Crocker
Edgemoor Research Institute
Email: steve@shinkuro.com
Flanagan & Crocker Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 14]
