[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02

    Network Working Group                                           J. Gould
    Internet-Draft                                            VeriSign, Inc.
    Intended status: Best Current Practice                       M. Casanova
    Expires: March 27, 2020                                           SWITCH
                                                          September 24, 2019

          Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
              draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces-02

    Abstract

       The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,
       includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
       to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
       during a session.  The services are identified using namespace URIs.
       How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
       in the response when the client does not support the required service
       namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace?  An
       unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of RFC
       5730 poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the server
       prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client needs
       to be capable of processing all poll messages.  This document defines
       an operational practice that enables the server to return information
       associated with unhandled namespace URIs that is compliant with the
       negotiated services defined in RFC 5730.

    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 March 27, 2020.

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 1]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

    Copyright Notice

       Copyright (c) 2019 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
         1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.  Unhandled Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.  Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data  . . . . .   4
         3.1.  Unhandled Object-Level Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
         3.2.  Unhandled Command-Response Extension  . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.  Usage with General EPP Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.  Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
         6.1.  Verisign EPP SDK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
         6.2.  SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process  . . . . . .  16
       7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       Appendix A.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
         A.1.  Change from 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
         A.2.  Change from 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

    1.  Introduction

       The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],
       includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
       to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
       during a session.  The services are identified using namespace URIs.
       How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
       in the response when the client does not support the required service
       namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace?  An
       unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
       [RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the
       server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 2]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       needs to be capable of processing all poll messages.  An unhandled
       namespace is an issue also for general EPP responses when the server
       has information that it cannot return to the client due to the
       client's supported services.  The server should be able to return
       unhandled namespace information that the client can process later.
       This document defines an operational practice that enables the server
       to return information associated with unhandled namespace URIs that
       is compliant with the negotiated services defined in [RFC5730].

    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 RFC 2119 [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, "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.

       The examples reference XML namespace prefixes that are used for the
       associated XML namespaces.  Implementations MUST NOT depend on the
       example XML namespaces and instead employ a proper namespace-aware
       XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
       The example namespace prefixes used and their associated XML
       namespaces include:

       "changePoll":  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0
       "domain":  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
       "secDNS":  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1

       In the template example XML, placeholder content is represented by
       the following variables:

       "[NAMESPACE-XML]":  XML content associated with a login service
           namespace URI.  An example is the <domain:infData> element
           content in [RFC5731].
       "[NAMESPACE-URI]":  XML namespace URI associated with the [NAMESPACE-
           XML] XML content.  An example is "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-
           1.0" in [RFC5731].

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 3]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

    2.  Unhandled Namespaces

       An Unhandled Namespace is an XML namespace that is associated with a
       response extension that is not included in the client-specified EPP
       login services of [RFC5730].  The EPP login services consists of the
       set of XML namespace URIs included in the <objURI> or <extURI>
       elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <login> command.  The services
       supported by the server are included in the <objURI> and <extURI>
       elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <greeting>, which should be a superset
       of the login services included in the EPP <login> command.  A server
       may have information associated with a specific namespace that it
       needs to return in the response to a client.  The unhandled
       namespaces problem exists when the server has information, that it
       needs to return to the client, that is not supported by the client
       based on the negotiated EPP <login> command services.

    3.  Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data

       When a server has data to return to the client, that the client does
       not support based on the login services, the server MAY return a
       successful response, with the data for each unsupported namespace
       moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> element.  The unhandled namespace
       will not cause an error response, but the unhandled namespace data
       will instead be moved to an <extValue> element, along with a reason
       why the unhandled namespace data could not be included in the
       appropriate location of the response.  The <extValue> element XML
       will not be processed by the XML processor.  The <extValue> element
       contains the following child elements:

       <value>:  Contains a child-element with the unhandled namespace XML.
           The XML namespace and namespace prefix of the child element MUST
           be defined, which MAY be defined in the <value> element or in the
           the child element.  XML processing of the <value> element is
           disabled in [RFC5730], so the information can safely be returned
           in the <value> element.
       <reason>:  A formatted human-readable message that indicates the
           reason the unhandled namespace data was not returned in the
           appropriate location of the response.  The formatted reason
           SHOULD follow the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) grammar
           [RFC5234] format: NAMESPACE-URI "not in login services", where
           NAMESPACE-URI is the unhandled XML namespace like
           "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" for [RFC5731].

       This document supports handling of unsupported namespaces for
       [RFC3735] object-level extensions and command-response extensions.
       This document does not support [RFC3735] protocol-level extensions or
       authentication information extensions.  Refer to the following

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 4]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       sections on how to handle an unsupported object-level extension
       namespace or an unsupported command-response extension namespace.

    3.1.  Unhandled Object-Level Extension

       An object-level extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
       <resData> element.  If the client does not handle the namespace of
       the object-level extension, then the <resData> element is removed and
       its object-level extension child element is moved into a [RFC5730]
       <extValue> <value> element, with the namespace URI included in the
       corresponding <extValue> <reason> element.  The response becomes a
       general EPP response without the <resData> element.

       Template response for a supported object-level extension.  The
       [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the object-level extension XML.

       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:      [NAMESPACE-XML]
       S:    </resData>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 5]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       Template unhandled namespace response for an unsupported object-level
       extension.  The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the object-level
       extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable represents the object-
       level extension XML namespace URI.

       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:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:          [NAMESPACE-XML]
       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:          [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:    </result>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

       The EPP response is converted from an object response to a general
       EPP response by the server when the client does not support the
       object-level extension namespace URI.  Below is example of converting
       the <transfer> query response example in [RFC5730] to an unhandled
       namespace response.

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 6]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       [RFC5730] example <transfer> query response converted into an
       unhandled namespace 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:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:          <domain:trnData
       S:            xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
       S:            <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
       S:            <domain:trStatus>pending</domain:trStatus>
       S:            <domain:reID>ClientX</domain:reID>
       S:            <domain:reDate>2000-06-06T22:00:00.0Z</domain:reDate>
       S:            <domain:acID>ClientY</domain:acID>
       S:            <domain:acDate>2000-06-11T22:00:00.0Z</domain:acDate>
       S:            <domain:exDate>2002-09-08T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
       S:          </domain:trnData>
       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:          urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:    </result>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

    3.2.  Unhandled Command-Response Extension

       A command-response extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
       <extension> element.  If the client does not handle the namespace of
       the command-response extension, the command-response child element is
       moved into a [RFC5730] <extValue> <value> element, with the namespace
       URI included in the corresponding <extValue> <reason> element.  If
       after moving the command-response child element there are no
       additional command-response child elements, the <extension> element
       MUST be removed.

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 7]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       Template response for a supported command-response extension.  The
       [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the command-response extension
       XML.

       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:    <extension>
       S:      [NAMESPACE-XML]
       S:    </extension>
       S:    <trID>
       S:     <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

       Template unhandled namespace response for an unsupported command-
       response extension.  The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the
       command-response extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable
       represents the command-response extension XML namespace URI.

       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:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:         [NAMESPACE-XML]
       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:          [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:    </result>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

       The EPP response is converted to an unhandled namespace response by
       moving the unhandled command-response extension from under the

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 8]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       <extension> to an <extValue> element.  Below is example of converting
       the DS Data Interface <info> response example in [RFC5910] to an
       unhandled namespace response.

       [RFC5910] DS Data Interface <info> response converted into an
       unhandled namespace 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:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:        <secDNS:infData
       S:          xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1">
       S:          <secDNS:dsData>
       S:          <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
       S:          <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
       S:          <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
       S:          <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
       S:          </secDNS:dsData>
       S:          </secDNS:infData>
       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:          urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1 not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:    </result>
       S:    <resData>
       S:      <domain:infData
       S:       xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
       S:        <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
       S:        <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
       S:        <domain:status s="ok"/>
       S:        <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
       S:        <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:        <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:        <domain:ns>
       S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
       S:          <domain:hostObj>ns2.example.com</domain:hostObj>
       S:        </domain:ns>
       S:        <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
       S:        <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
       S:        <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
       S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
       S:        <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
       S:        <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                 [Page 9]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       S:        <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
       S:        <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
       S:        <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
       S:        <domain:authInfo>
       S:          <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
       S:        </domain:authInfo>
       S:      </domain:infData>
       S:    </resData>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

    4.  Usage with General EPP Responses

       The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for
       a general EPP response to an EPP command.  A general EPP response
       includes any non-poll message EPP response.  The use of the unhandled
       namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in
       Section 5.  The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace
       information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the
       unhandled namespace approach.

       The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD
       only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in
       Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP
       command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI
       in the login services.  An object-level EPP response extension is
       returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP
       command extension.  The server MAY return an unhandled object-level
       extension to the client as defined in Section 3.1.

       Returning domain name Redemption Grace Period (RGP) data, based on
       [RFC3915], provides an example of applying the unhandled namespace
       approach for a general EPP response.  If the client does not include
       the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0" namespace URI in the login
       services, and the domain <info> response of a domain name does have
       RGP information, the server MAY exclude the <rgp:infData> element
       from the EPP response or MAY include it under in the <extValue>
       element per Section 3.2.

       [RFC5731] domain name <info> response with the unhandled [RFC3915]
       <rgp:infData> element included under an <extValue> element:

       S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
       S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 10]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       S:  <response>
       S:    <result code="1000">
       S:      <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
       S:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:          <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0">
       S:            <rgp:rgpStatus s="redemptionPeriod"/>
       S:          </rgp:infData>
       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:          urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0 not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:    </result>
       S:    <resData>
       S:      <domain:infData
       S:       xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
       S:        <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
       S:        <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
       S:        <domain:status s="pendingDelete"/>
       S:        <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
       S:        <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:        <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:        <domain:ns>
       S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
       S:          <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.net</domain:hostObj>
       S:        </domain:ns>
       S:        <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
       S:        <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
       S:        <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
       S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
       S:        <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
       S:        <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
       S:        <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
       S:        <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
       S:        <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
       S:        <domain:authInfo>
       S:          <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
       S:        </domain:authInfo>
       S:      </domain:infData>
       S:    </resData>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 11]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

    5.  Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses

       The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used
       if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll>
       message response.  The server inserts poll messages into the client's
       poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login
       services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command-
       response extensions included in a client's poll queue.  In [RFC5730],
       the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge
       poll messages that have been inserted by the server.  The <poll>
       message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element
       that provides poll queue meta-data about the message.  The unhandled
       namespace approach, defined in Section 3, is used for an unhandled
       object-level extension and for each of the unhandled command-response
       extensions attached to the <poll> message response.  The resulting
       EPP <poll> message response MAY have either or both the object-level
       extension or command-response extensions moved to <extValue>
       elements, as defined in Section 3.

       The Change Poll Message, as defined in [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll],
       which is an extension of any EPP object, is an example of applying
       the unhandled namespace approach for EPP <poll> message responses.
       The object that will be used in the examples is a [RFC5731] domain
       name object.

       [RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response with the
       unhandled [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll] <changePoll:changeData>
       element included under an <extValue> element:

       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:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:          <changePoll:changeData
       S:          xmlns:changePoll="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
       S:            state="after">
       S:            <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
       S:            <changePoll:date>
       S:              2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</changePoll:date>
       S:            <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
       S:            <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
       S:            <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
       S:            </changePoll:caseId>
       S:            <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
       S:          </changePoll:changeData>

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 12]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:    </result>
       S:    <msgQ
       S:      count="15"
       S:      id="1"
       S:    >
       S:      <qDate>2018-08-24T19:21:51.087Z</qDate>
       S:      <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
       S:    </msgQ>
       S:    <resData>
       S:      <domain:infData
       S:        xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
       S:        <domain:name>change-poll.tld</domain:name>
       S:        <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
       S:        <domain:status s="serverUpdateProhibited"/>
       S:        <domain:status s="serverDeleteProhibited"/>
       S:        <domain:status s="serverTransferProhibited"/>
       S:        <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
       S:        <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:        <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:        <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
       S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
       S:        <domain:crDate>2012-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:crDate>
       S:        <domain:upID>ClientZ</domain:upID>
       S:        <domain:upDate>2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</domain:upDate>
       S:        <domain:exDate>2014-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:exDate>
       S:      </domain:infData>
       S:    </resData>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

       Unhandled [RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response and
       the unhandled [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll] <changePoll:changeData>
       element included under an <extValue> element:

       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>

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 13]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       S:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:          <domain:infData
       S:            xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
       S:            <domain:name>change-poll.tld</domain:name>
       S:            <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
       S:            <domain:status s="serverUpdateProhibited"/>
       S:            <domain:status s="serverDeleteProhibited"/>
       S:            <domain:status s="serverTransferProhibited"/>
       S:            <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
       S:            <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:            <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
       S:            <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
       S:            <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
       S:            <domain:crDate>2012-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:crDate>
       S:            <domain:upID>ClientZ</domain:upID>
       S:            <domain:upDate>2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</domain:upDate>
       S:            <domain:exDate>2014-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:exDate>
       S:          </domain:infData>
       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:        urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:      <extValue>
       S:        <value>
       S:          <changePoll:changeData
       S:          xmlns:changePoll="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
       S:            state="after">
       S:            <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
       S:            <changePoll:date>
       S:              2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</changePoll:date>
       S:            <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
       S:            <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
       S:            <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
       S:            </changePoll:caseId>
       S:            <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
       S:          </changePoll:changeData>
       S:        </value>
       S:        <reason>
       S:      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
       S:        </reason>
       S:      </extValue>
       S:    </result>
       S:    <msgQ
       S:      count="15"
       S:      id="1"
       S:    >

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 14]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       S:      <qDate>2018-08-24T19:23:12.822Z</qDate>
       S:      <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
       S:    </msgQ>
       S:    <trID>
       S:      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
       S:      <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       S:    </trID>
       S:  </response>
       S:</epp>

    6.  Implementation Status

       Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
       RFC 7942 [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 RFC 7942
       [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 RFC 7942 [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".

    6.1.  Verisign EPP SDK

       Organization: Verisign Inc.

       Name: Verisign EPP SDK

       Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the
       unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages.

       Level of maturity: Development

       Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 15]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License

       Contact: jgould@verisign.com

       URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-
       registry-products/epp-sdks

    6.2.  SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process

       Organization: SWITCH

       Name: Registry of .CH and .LI

       Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about
       DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records.  These poll
       messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-
       1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are
       rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft.

       Level of maturity: Operational

       Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.

       Licensing: Proprietary

       Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch

       URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds

    7.  Security Considerations

       The document do not provide any security services beyond those
       described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP.  The
       security considerations described in these other specifications apply
       to this specification as well.

    8.  Acknowledgements

       TBD

    9.  Normative References

       [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll]
                  Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
                  Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", draft-ietf-
                  regext-change-poll-12 (work in progress), January 2019.

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 16]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       [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>.

       [RFC3735]  Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
                  Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
                  DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
                  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.

       [RFC3915]  Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for
                  the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,
                  DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004,
                  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>.

       [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
                  Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
                  DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
                  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

       [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>.

       [RFC5910]  Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
                  Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
                  Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
                  DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
                  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.

       [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>.

    Appendix A.  Change History

    A.1.  Change from 00 to 01

       1.  Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
           reference from examples.
       2.  removed <extension></extension> block from example.

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 17]

    Internet-Draft                 changePoll                 September 2019

       3.  added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at
           Implementation Status

    A.2.  Change from 01 to 02

       1.  Minor changes

    Authors' Addresses

       James Gould
       VeriSign, Inc.
       12061 Bluemont Way
       Reston, VA  20190
       US

       Email: jgould@verisign.com
       URI:   http://www.verisigninc.com

       Martin Casanova
       SWITCH
       P.O. Box
       Zurich, ZH  8021
       CH

       Email: martin.casanova@switch.ch
       URI:   http://www.switch.ch

    Gould & Casanova         Expires March 27, 2020                [Page 18]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/