Internet DRAFT - draft-wisser-registrylock
draft-wisser-registrylock
Registration Protocols Extensions U. Wisser
Internet-Draft The Swedish Internet Foundation
Intended status: Standards Track 7 July 2021
Expires: 8 January 2022
Registry Lock Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
draft-wisser-registrylock-04
Abstract
This extensions defines an additional protective layer for changes to
domain [RFC5731], host [RFC5732] and contact [RFC5733] objects
managed through EPP.
EPP allows changes to objects only by the sponsoring client. EPP
objects are usually managed by the sponsoring client on behalf of the
sponsoring clients customers. All of these interactions are ususally
fully automated.
In case of a system breach, there is no protection in EPP to changes
to any object by the intruder.
This extension defines a protective layer that aims to break
automated changes and work flows by requiring manual intervention.
The actual form of manual intervention is out-of-scope for this
document. By whom and how changes can be made is up to the registry
and registrars to decide.
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 8 January 2022.
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Object Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Out-of-band Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. In-band Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Command Execution Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Temporary Unlock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Locking Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. EPP <check> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.3. EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. EPP <renew> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.5. EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Registry Lock Extension Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
A.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
This extensions defines an additional protective layer for changes to
domain [RFC5731], host [RFC5732] and contact [RFC5733] objects
managed through EPP.
EPP allows changes to objects only by the sponsoring client. EPP
objects are usually managed by the sponsoring client on behalf of the
sponsoring clients customers. All of these interactions are ususally
fully automated.
In case of a system breach, there is no protection in EPP to changes
to any object by the intruder.
This extension defines a protective layer that aims to break
automated changes and work flows by requiring manual intervention.
The actual form of manual intervention is out-of-scope for this
document. By whom and how changes can be made is up to the registry
and registrars to decide.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
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.
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.
"regLock" is used as an abbreviation for
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0". The XML namespace
prefix "reglock" 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.
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
2. Object Protection
This extension provides additional protection to objects managed by a
sponsoring client on behalf of a registrant. This is achieved by
requiring additional authorization for transform commands.
Solutions can be broadly categorized as in-band or out-of-band
authorizations. Where in-band authorizations would provide
authorization through EPP. Whereas out-of-band solutions provide
authorization by some other means.
* either by temporarily unlocking the object for changes
* or by authorizing pending changes after they have been submitted
to the server
2.1. Out-of-band Authorization
Out-of-band Authorization is not covered in this document. By
definition out-of-band authorization will not use EPP and therefore
is not subject of consideration here.
Registries must provide means for the registrar or registrant to
temporarily unlock the domain, to remove registry lock or ro
authorize changes submitted to the server through some means than
EPP.
2.2. In-band Authorization
Currently defined authorization schemes are not deemed secure enough
for in-band change authorization. Therefore this document does not
allow in-band authorization. This is left as a future development
once secure enough authorization schemes have been defined.
The current defined authorization scheme is based on static
passwords. This would mean that once a password is known any change
can be made. Security here is once again dependend on the security
of all automatic systems invloved.
2.3. Command Execution Restrictions
Once an object has Registry Lock enabled all transform commands
except <renew> MUST only be executed if a proper authorization has
been made.
Otherwise the command MUST be rejected with EPP result code 2201
"Authorization error" or 1001 "Command completed successfully; action
pending" [RFC5730] section 3 in depending on the chosen out-of-band
authorization.
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
if the server has returned a 1001 "Command completed successfully;
action pending" answer, it MUST follow [RFC5731], [RFC5732],
[RFC5733] in handling succeeded or failed commands.
The following EPP flags must be set.
* serverDeleteProhibited
* serverTransferProhibited
* serverUpdateProhibited
If the object is unlocked the flags SHOULD be cleared and the server
should answer to an <info> request with the according information.
OPEN QUESTION: If a domain is under registry lock, can a subordinate
host be updated?
* I got one "no" answer - hosts might not be owned by domain owner
* In .se/.nu all subordinary hosts are automatically owned by the
domain owner and locked if the domain is locked.
We need more input!
If the object is temporarily unlocked only <update> commands are
allowed. <delete> and <transfer> are explicitly not allowed. For
the time of the temporary unlock the serverUpdateProhibited status
should be cleared.
2.4. Temporary Unlock
While an object is locked some situations could require a change. To
fully unlock the object would remove all protection and could not
provide any guarantee that the object is protected again after the
desired changes have been made.
Temporarily unlocking the object allows for a more fine grained
security model for all objects.
Any temporary unlocking of the object has to be time limited. After
that time has passed no further changes are possible.
Additionally the number of allowed EPP commands can be specified to
further limit the changes possible.
Registries and registrars can further limit the possibles changes,
e.g. not allowing owner changes even for temporarily unlocked Domain
objects.
IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH A GOOD IDEA? INPUT NEEDED!!!
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
When an object is temporarily unlocked the serverUpdateProhibited
SHOULD be cleared while changes are possible.
When either the time for the temporary unlock has passed or the
maximum amount of EPP changes has been made the object MUST return to
a fully locked status. The serverUpdateProhibited flag MUST be set
again and the infData response MUST no longer contain a
<unlockedUntil> element.
3. Object Attributes
3.1. Locking Status
Locking Status information indicates if the additional protection of
Registry Lock is enabled for an object.
Boolean values MUST be represented in the XML Schema format described
in Part 2 of the W3C XML Schema recommendation
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028].
4. EPP Command Mapping
A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730].
4.1. EPP Query Commands
4.1.1. EPP <check> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <check> command
or <check> response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731],
[RFC5732] or [RFC5733].
4.1.2. EPP <info> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <info> command
described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731], host mapping [RFC5732]
or contact mapping [RFC5733] However, additional elements are defined
for the <info> response.
When an <info> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
<resData> element MUST contain child elements as described in the EPP
object mappings.
In addition, the EPP <extension> element SHOULD contain a child
<regLock:infData> element that identifies the extension namespace the
epp client has indicated support for the extension in the <login>
command.
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
The <regLock:infData> element contains the following child elements:
* Exactly one <locked> element that indicates if Registry Lock is
enabled for the object.
* An OPTIONAL <unlockedUntil> element if the object currently can be
changed by the sponsoring client. The field indicates the time
stamp when the lock will become active again.
* An OPTIONAL <eppCmdCount> attribute that indicates the number of
EPP <update> commands that will be executed.
Example <domain:info> Response, domain not locked
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
S: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
...
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <regLock:infData
S: xmlns:regLock="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0">
S: <regLock:locked>0</regLock:locked>
S: </regLock:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Example <domain:info> Response, domain locked
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
S: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
...
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <regLock:infData
S: xmlns:regLock="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0">
S: <regLock:locked>1</regLock:locked>
S: </regLock:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Example <domain:info> Response, domain temporary unlocked
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
S: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
...
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <regLock:infData
S: xmlns:regLock="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0">
S: <regLock:locked>1</regLock:locked>
S:<regLock:unlockedUntil eppCmdCount="1">20000101T000000+0000
S:</regLock:unlockedUntil>
S: </regLock:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
4.1.3. EPP <transfer> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
command or <transfer> response described in the EPP mapping
[RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733].
4.2. EPP Transform Commands
4.2.1. EPP <create> Command
This extension is intended to be used within the scope of the object
creation. It does not define a <create> command of its own.
This extension adds elements to the EPP <create> command as described
in the EPP [RFC5730].
When submitting a <create> command to the server, the client MAY
include in the <extension> element a <registryLock:lock> element to
create the domain in a locked state. The extension includes the
following element:
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
* A <regLock:lock> element indicating that the domain MUST be
created in a locked state.
When a <create> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
response is as described in the EPP objects mappings [RFC5731],
[RFC5732], [RFC5733].
Example <host:create> command
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <create>
C: <host:create
C: xmlns:host="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:host-1.0">
C: <host:name>ns1.example.com</host:name>
C: <host:addr ip="v4">192.0.2.2</host:addr>
C: <host:addr ip="v4">192.0.2.29</host:addr>
C: <host:addr ip="v6">1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A</host:addr>
C: </host:create>
C: </create>
C: <extension>
C: <regLock:lock
C: xmlns:regLock="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0" />
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
4.2.2. EPP <delete> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <delete> command
or <delete> response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731],
[RFC5732] or [RFC5733].
If the object is locked, the EPP <delete> command MUST be rejected
with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section
3. See Section 2.3
4.2.3. EPP <renew> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <renew> command
or <renew> response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731],
[RFC5732] or [RFC5733].
Execution of the EPP <renew> command is not restricted by this
extension.
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
4.2.4. EPP <transfer> Command
This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <transfer>
command or <transfer> response described in the EPP mappings
[RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733].
If the object is locked, the EPP <transfer> command MUST be rejected
with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section
3. See Section 2.3
4.2.5. EPP <update> Command
This extension adds elements to the EPP <update> command as described
in [RFC5730].
If the object is not locked, the <update> command can be used to lock
the object, similarly to the <create> command.
If the object is in locked state, but temporarily unlocked, the
server MUST execute the command as if the object were unlocked.
If the object is locked the server can handle <update> commands in
two ways
* answering the command with EPP response code 1001 "Command
completed successfully; action pending" [RFC5730] section 3
* rejecting with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error"
[RFC5730] section 3
Registries can narrow down allowed changes when a domain is locked.
Registries could prohobit changes of registrant for doamins even if
the domain is temporatily unlocked or password authorization is
given.
When a <update> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
response is as described in the EPP objects mappings [RFC5731],
[RFC5732], [RFC5733].
Example <domain:update> command, locking domain
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
C:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
C:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
C: <command>
C: <update>
C: <domain:update
C: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
C: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
C: </domain:update>
C: </update>
C: <extension>
C: <regLock:lock
C: xmlns:regLock="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0" />
C: </extension>
C: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
C: </command>
C:</epp>
5. Formal Syntax
One schema is presented here that is the EPP Registry Lock Extension
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.
5.1. Registry Lock Extension Schema
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.00"
xmlns:regLock="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
Registry Lock Extension to the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<!-- child elements found in EPP commands -->
<xs:element name="lock" />
<!-- child elements found in EPP responses -->
<xs:element name="infData" type="regLock:infDataType"/>
<!-- child element of the response -->
<xs:complexType name="infDataType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="locked" type="xs:boolean"/>
<xs:element name="unlockedUntil" type="xs:dateTime" minOccurs="0">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:attribute name="eppCmdCount" type="xs:positiveInteger" minOccurs="0" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:schema>
END
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. XML Namespace
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The
following URI assignment is requested of IANA:
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
Registration request for the registryLock namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the registryLock XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:epp:registryLock-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
6.2. EPP Extension Registry
The EPP extension described in this document should be registered by
the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in [RFC7451]. The
details of the registration are as follows:
Name of Extension: "Registry Lock Extension for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
Document status: Standards Track
Reference: (insert reference to RFC version of this document)
Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
7. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.
Implemented by .SE since 2019.
8. Security Considerations
The security properties of EPP from [RFC5730] are preserved.
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
This extensions introduces an additional security layer for changes
of objects managed through EPP. The overall security of these
measures depends on the security of the out-of-band authorization.
Registries and registrars are therefore adviced to select secure
forms of authorization.
Current EPP authorizations schemes are not secure enough to allow in-
band authorization. Registries and registrars therefore MUST not
implent in-band command authorization.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions:
10. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[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>.
[RFC5732] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732,
August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5732>.
[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733,
August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.
[RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451,
February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451>.
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, 28 October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028>.
Appendix A. Change History
A.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Corrected information for the <create/> command.
2. Minor fixes in wording.
3. Introduces resData element.
A.2. Change from 01 to 02
1. Multiple spelling errors fixed.
2. Moved response from resData to extension part of the EPP
response.
3. Clarification of password and out-of-band usage.
4. Updated XML schema and examples
5. Changed security considerations for password authorization.
6. Added unlockUntil to create command
7. Forbid temporarily unlock for password authorization.
A.3. Change from 02 to 03
1. Fix list styles for better readability
2. Fix reference to W3C XML Schema
A.4. Change from 03 to 04
1. Remove references to in-band authorization
2. Remove special response elements
3. Add command counter to temporary unlock
4. Fix formatting and XML schema
Author's Address
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft registryLock July 2021
Ulrich Wisser
The Swedish Internet Foundation
Box 92073
SE-12007 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: ulrich@wisser.se
URI: https://www.internetstiftelsen.se
Wisser Expires 8 January 2022 [Page 17]
