Re: [ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

Hmm....in this time period you talk about, I have implemented epp from  
the beginning -- twice -- and got quite some experience. There are a  
few things that would be good to clarify, although they to some degree  
have to do with the database management and structure and not so much  
the actual protocol.

Then small things that could have been better I think, but I guess  
everyone have implemented this already, so to make the changes might  
be wrong at this point (and not necessary).

On the first, I see differences on how transfers of domains and  
"attached objects" work. Some registries require explicit transfer of  
contacts, which imply one (as I think) might as registrar have access  
to the domain object, but not contact. Other registries do clone the  
contact object when a domain is transferred, and the clone get a new  
contact-id (which imply the number of contact objects in the database  
increase, and the contact-id of holder change in the domain when the  
transfer happens.

Maybe some clarification about "contact id" is needed?

On the second, I look specifically at the DNSSEC extension, RFC4310,  
where the update command is inconsistent. This is something that  
programmers more than myself has missed, and that required some extra  
hours of debugging.

a)

> The <secDNS:add> element is used to add DS information to an  
> existing set. The <secDNS:add> element MUST contain one or more  
> <secDNS: dsData> elements as described in Section 3.1.2.

b)

> The <secDNS:rem> element contains one or more <secDNS:keyTag>  
> elements that are used to remove DS data from a delegation. The  
> <secDNS:keyTag> element MUST contain a key tag value as described in  
> section 5.1.1 of RFC 4034 [6]. Removing all DS information can  
> remove the ability of the parent to secure the delegation to the  
> child zone.

Note that the format inside the <secDNS:add> and <secDNS:rem> is  
different. The rem element "directly" include the keytag element while  
the add element include dsData (that in turn include the keytag).

Why is there not a dsData wrapper around the keytag element for the  
rem command?

c)

.SE have added a feature in the update command, and that is that the  
keyID in a rem update can use the specific key tag "0" that imply all  
keys are to be removed.

Are these things that could be interesting to discuss, and if so,  
should I send text somewhere?

    Patrik

On 2 apr 2009, at 13.18, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

> (trimming the recipients a bit)
>
> It's been 3 months since I last heard from anyone who had any concerns
> with moving forward, so I'm going to get moving.  I have copies of the
> XML source files for the current RFCs to use as a basis for new I- 
> Ds.  I
> intend to update references in RFCs 4930-4934 as needed.  I will add
> text to 4934 to better describe the TLS usage profile as noted by  
> Chris.
>
> -Scott-
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Newman@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:08 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; lisa@osafoundation.org
>> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
>>
>> Two questions I missed:
>>
>> --On October 17, 2008 8:28:31 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott"
>> <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:
>>> 4291: is its status a show-stopper for advancement?  I'd
>> like to have
>>> that question answered before I invest a lot of time in making any
>>> document updates to address the TLS topics you noted.
>>
>> This is a case for RFC 3967, IMHO.  While I can't predict how
>> the rest of the IETF will behave on this point, the only
>> alternative would be to rip
>> IPv6 support out of the base spec into a separate extension
>> that doesn't advance on the standards track.  I would find it
>> quite surprising if the IETF/IESG choose that alternative to RFC  
>> 3967.
>>
>>> Can you point me to another specification that includes a TLS usage
>>> profile that addresses the features you described?  I'd
>> like to see an
>>> example that has recently passed muster with the IESG.
>>
>> The most recent is:
>>  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls>
>>
>> 		- Chris
>>
>>
>

This is a digitally signed message part