Internet DRAFT - draft-sattler-epp-poll-maintenance-response
draft-sattler-epp-poll-maintenance-response
Internet Engineering Task Force T. Sattler
Internet-Draft December 4, 2017
Intended status: Standard Track
Expires: May 3, 2018
JSON response to provide Registry Maintenance Notifications
within an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) poll response
draft-sattler-epp-poll-maintenance-response-07
Abstract
This document describes the JSON response which can be included in an
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) <poll> response to provide
Domain Name Registry Maintenance Notifications to Domain Name
Registrars.
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 May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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.
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Common Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Common Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. TLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. EPP <poll> Command. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Internationalisation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Internationalised Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.3. Date-Time Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Motivations for using JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.5. Change from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.6. Change from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.7. Change from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
This document describes the JSON [RFC7159] response which can be
included in an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730]
<poll> response to provide Domain Name Registry Maintenance
Notifications to Domain Name Registrars.
1.1. Terminology and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when
specified in their uppercase forms.
The following list describes terminology and definitions used
throughout this document:
DNRR: Domain Name Registrar
DNRY: Domain Name Registry
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
EPP: Extensible Provisioning Protocol
JSON: JavaScript Object Notation
NTFY: Domain Name Registry Maintenance Notification
UUID: Universally Unique Identifier
2. Common Data Types
JSON [RFC7159] defines the data types of a number, character string,
boolean, array, object, and null. This section describes the
semantics and/or syntax reference for common, JSON character strings
used in this document.
maintenance: an array containing specification and one or more
notifications
specification: a string containing the URI to this document to
provide more details about this poll message and
to facilitate the adoption.
notification: an object containing a single NTFY
id: a string containing the NTFY ID to identify it.
MUST be an UUID according [RFC4122], SHOULD NOT
be changed if it gets postponed or updated
purpose: a string indicating the purpose of this NTFY; MUST
either be 'create', 'update', 'delete'. If it
is delete then everything besides id is OPTIONAL.
systems: an array of objects containing name, host and
impact
name: a string indicating the name of affected system
host: a string indicating the affected maintained system
(host or IP address).
hostname SHOULD be Punycode according [RFC3492].
IPv4 addresses SHOULD be dotted-decimal notation.
An example of this textual representation is
"192.0.2.0".
IPv6 addresses SHOULD be according [RFC5952].
An example of this textual representation is
"2001:db8::1:0:0:1".
impact: a string impact containing the level per affected
system; values are either 'partial' or 'blackout'
environment: a string representing the affected maintained
systems; values are 'production', 'ote', 'staging'
or 'dev'
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
start: a string containing the start of maintenance
according ISO 8601 [RFC3339]
YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssTZ
end: a string containing the end of maintenance
according ISO 8601 [RFC3339]
YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssTZ
reason: a string denoting the reason for this maintenance,
MUST either be 'planned' or 'emergency'
remark: a string containing an URI to detailed maintenance
description, MAY be empty
tlds: an array of strings containing all affected top
-level domains Punycode encoded according [RFC3492]
intervention: an object of booleans containing connection and
implementation
connection: a boolean indicating if DNRR needs to do
something that is connection related, such as a
reconnect.
implementation: a boolean indicating if DNRR needs to do
something that is implementation related, such as
code changes.
3. Common Data Structures
This section defines common data structures used in responses.
3.1. Notification
The data structure named "notification" is an object and contains a
single NTFY.
An example "notification" data structure:
"notification":{
"id":"2e6df9b0-4092-4491-bcc8-9fb2166dcee6",
"purpose":"create",
"systems":[{
"name":"EPP",
"host":"epp.registry.example",
"impact":"blackout"
}],
"environment":"production",
"start":"2017-04-30T06:00:00Z",
"end":"2017-04-30T07:00:00Z",
"reason":"planned",
"remark":"https://www.registry.example/notice?123",
"tlds":["example","test"],
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
"intervention":{
"connection":false,
"implementation":false
}
}
3.2. Systems
The data structure named "systems" is an array of objects, indicating
the systems affected by the maintenance.
An example "systems" data structure:
"systems":
[
{
"name":"EPP",
"host":"epp.registry.example",
"impact":"partial"
},
{
"name":"WHOIS",
"host":"whois.registry.example",
"impact":"partial"
},
{
"name":"Portal",
"host":"https://portal.registry.example",
"impact":"blackout"
}
]
3.3. Intervention
The data structure named "intervention" is an object of booleans,
each indicating if the DNRR needs to do something.
An example "intervention" data structure:
"intervention":{
"connection":true,
"implementation":false
}
3.4. TLDs
The data structure named "tlds" is an array of strings indicating the
affected top level domains of the DNRY.
An example "tlds" data structure:
"tlds":[
"example",
"test"
]
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
4. EPP Command Mapping
A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
in [RFC5730].
4.1. EPP <poll> Command
According to EPP [RFC5730], the response to an EPP <poll> command
allows mixed content and also be returned without object information.
Below is an example <poll> response with JSON.
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="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ count="4" id="12346">
S: <qDate>2017-02-08T22:10:00.0Z</qDate>
S: <msg lang="en">
S: {"maintenance":[
S: {"specification":"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
S: draft-sattler-epp-poll-maintenance-response/"},
S: {"notification":{
S: "id":"2e6df9b0-4092-4491-bcc8-9fb2166dcee6",
S: "purpose":"create",
S: "systems":[{"name":"EPP","host":"epp.registry.example",
S: "impact":"blackout"}],
S: "environment":"production",
S: "start":"2017-04-30T06:00:00Z",
S: "end":"2017-04-30T07:00:00Z",
S: "reason":"planned",
S: "remark":"https://www.registry.example/notice?123",
S: "tlds":["example","test"],
S: "intervention":
S: {"connection":false,"implementation":false}
S: }},
S: {"notification":{
S: "id":"91e9dabf-c4e9-4c19-a56c-78e3e89c2e2f",
S: "purpose":"update",
S: "systems":[{"name":"EPP","host":"epp.registry.example",
S: "impact":"partial"},
S: {"name":"WHOIS","host":"whois.registry.example",
S: "impact":"partial"},
S: {"name":"Portal",
S: "host":"https://portal.registry.example",
S: "impact":"blackout"}],
S: "environment":"production",
S: "start":"2017-06-15T04:30:00Z",
S: "end":"2017-06-15T05:30:00Z",
S: "reason":"emergency",
S: "remark":"https://www.registry.example/notice?456",
S: "tlds":["example"],
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
S: "intervention":
S: {"connection":true,"implementation":false}
S: }},
S: {"notification":{
S: "id":"644e9b83-5087-4aa7-9b41-0170a0f3e00f",
S: "purpose":"delete"
S: }}
S: ]}
S: </msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12346</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
6. Security Considerations
This specification models information serialized in JSON format. As
JSON is a subset of JavaScript, implementations are advised to follow
the security considerations outlined in Section 6 of [RFC7159] to
prevent code injection.
Implementers should be aware of the security considerations specified
in [RFC5730].
7. Internationalisation Considerations
7.1. Character Encoding
The default text encoding for JSON responses is UTF-8 [RFC3629], and
all servers and clients MUST support UTF-8.
7.2. Internationalised Domain Names
Affected TLDs as mention in Section 2 SHOULD be provided in Punycode
according [RFC3492].
7.3. Date-Time Values
All date-time values presented via MUST be expressed in Universal
Coordinated Time using the Gregorian calendar. JSON schema allows use
of time zone identifiers to indicate offsets from the zero meridian,
but this option MUST NOT be used. The extended date-time form using
upper case "T" and "Z" characters defined in ISO 8601 [RFC3339] MUST
be used to represent date-time values.
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
8. Implementation Status
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.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646"
, RFC3629, November 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)
", RFC 3492, March 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492>.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M. and Salz, R., "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, July
2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and Kawashima, M., "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and Farrel, A., "Improving Awareness of
Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC
7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>
Appendix A. Motivations for using JSON
This section addresses a common question regarding the use of JSON
over other data formats, most notably XML.
It is often pointed out that DNRY and DNRR support the EPP
[RFC5730] standard, which is an XML serialised protocol. The logic
is that since EPP is a common protocol in the industry, it follows
that XML would be a more natural choice.
While that being true, the intent to use JSON is to use the already
approved and reliable EPP command <poll> and its capabilities to
transport mixed content without object information instead of
creating a new EPP extension. The adoption of a new extension would
need more time and might not be more beneficial.
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
Appendix B. Change History
B.1. Change from 00 to 01
Removed JSON Schema. Clarified unique id with UUID. Added
Common Data Structures for better explanation. Fixed EPP poll
response example. Added und fixed References.
B.2. Change from 01 to 02
Clarified host field. Added TLDs to Common Data Structure. Added
Internationalisation Considerations. Changed authors address and
contact details.
B.3. Change from 02 to 03
Added date-time Values to Internationalisation Considerations.
Sorted Terminology and Definitions alphabetically. Changed start
and end date-time. Changed Reference URI to HTTPS.
B.4. Change from 03 to 04
Added Acknowledgements. Clarified UUID field to be not changed at
all. Clarified environment field with production, ote, staging and
dev. Clarified connection and implementation fields. Fixed writing
of systems field. Removed author's private address. Moved this
draft from Experimental to Standard Track.
B.5. Change from 04 to 05
Changed title of this draft to be more specific. Added Change Log.
Split References into Normative and Informative References. Clarified
Common Data Types. Rephrased Abstract and Introduction. Added
Implementation Status section.
B.6. Change from 05 to 06
Added IANA Considerations. Changed URIs from http to https. Added
new main section 4. EPP Command Mapping. Added new JSON field purpose
for announce, change or cancel of a maintenance notification.
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Maintenance JSON Response December 2017
B.7. Change from 06 to 07
Fixed typo in section 3.4. and added missing comma in the example of
section 4.1. Added the field specification to help facilitate the
adoption of this document. Changed possible purposes to create,
update and delete to be closer to the EPP syntax. Cleaned
whitespaces. Updated Acknowledgements.
Appendix C. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions (sorted alphabetically by company):
* Neal McPherson of 1&1 Internet
* Christopher Martens of Donuts
* Jody Kolker and Roger Carney of GoDaddy
* Raymond Zylstra of Neustar
* Andreas Huber of united-domains
* Craig Marchant of VentraIP
Author's Address
Tobias Sattler
Email: tobias.sattler@me.com
URI: https://tobiassattler.com
Sattler Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 11]
