Network Working Group

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          J. Gould
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9038                                VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track                                    M. Casanova
Expires: 23 August 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   SWITCH
                                                        19 February
                                                                May 2021

      Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
               draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-08

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,
   and an "unhandled namespace" is one that is associated with a service
   not supported by the client.  This document defines an operational
   practice that enables the server to return information associated
   with unhandled namespace URIs and that is compliant maintains compliance 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 an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list  It represents the consensus of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 23 August 2021.
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9038.

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)
   (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.  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.  Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Usage with General EPP Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Usage with Poll Message Poll-Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Client Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.2.  Server Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  EPP Extension Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.1.  Verisign EPP SDK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.2.  SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process  . . . . . .  18
   10.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   12.
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     12.1.
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     12.2.
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.1.  Change from 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.2.  Change from 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.3.  Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.4.  Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.5.  Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.6.  Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.7.  Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.8.  Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05  . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     A.9.  Change from REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06  . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     A.10. Change from REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07  . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     A.11. Change from REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08  . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

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? "unhandled namespace"?  An
   unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
   [RFC5730] the
   poll messages, messages described in [RFC5730], 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.  Returning an unhandled namespace poll message is not
   compliant with the negotiated services defined in [RFC5730] [RFC5730], and
   returning an error makes the unhandled namespace poll message a
   poison message by halting the processing of the poll queue.  An
   unhandled namespace is also 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 and
   that is compliant maintains compliance 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", "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.

   XML [W3C.REC-xml11-20060816] 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 features 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":

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

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

   secDNS:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1

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

   "[NAMESPACE-XML]":

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

   [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].

2.  Unhandled Namespaces

   An Unhandled Namespace 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 consist of the
   set of XML namespace URIs included in the <objURI> or <extURI>
   elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <login> command. command [RFC5730].  The services
   supported by the server are included in the <objURI> and <extURI>
   elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <greeting>, <greeting> [RFC5730], 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 client, but the namespace of the information
   is not supported by the client based on the negotiated EPP <login>
   command services.

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

   In [RFC5730], the <extValue> element is used to provide additional
   error diagnostic information, including the <value> element that
   identifies the client-provided element that caused a server error
   condition and the <reason> element containing the human-readable
   message that describes the reason for the error.  This operational
   practice extends the use of the <extValue> element for the purpose of
   returning unhandled namespace information in a successful response.

   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, response with the data for each unsupported namespace
   moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> element. element [RFC5730].  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 child element with the unhandled namespace XML.
       The unhandled namespace MUST be declared in the child element or
       any containing element element, including the root element.  XML
       processing of the <value> element is disabled by the XML schema
       in [RFC5730], so the information can safely be returned in the
       <value> element.

   <reason>:  A formatted 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 " not in login services", where
       NAMESPACE-URI is the unhandled XML namespace like
       "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" for in [RFC5731].

   This document applies to the handling of unsupported namespaces for
   [RFC3735]
   object-level extensions and command-response extensions. extensions [RFC3735].
   This document does not apply to the handling of unsupported
   namespaces for [RFC3735] protocol-level extensions or authentication authentication-
   information extensions. extensions [RFC3735].  Refer to the following 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] an <extValue>
   <value> element, element [RFC5730], with the namespace URI included in the
   corresponding <extValue> <reason> element.  The response becomes a
   general EPP response without the <resData> element.

   Template

   Below is a 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>

   Template

   Below is a template for an unhandled namespace response for an
   unsupported object-level extension.  The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable
   represents the object-level extension XML 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 an example of
   converting the a <transfer> query response example in (see Section 3.1.3
   of
   [RFC5731] to an unhandled namespace response.

   [RFC5731] example <transfer> query response [RFC5731]) converted into an unhandled namespace response: 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 an [RFC5730] <extValue> <value> element, element [RFC5730], with the
   namespace URI included in the corresponding <extValue> <reason>
   element.  If after moving the command-response child element  Afterwards, if there are no additional command-response
   child elements, the <extension> element MUST be removed.

   Template

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

   Below is a template of an unhandled namespace response for an
   unsupported command-
   response command-response extension.  The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable
   represents the command-response extension XML XML, and the [NAMESPACE-URI] [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
   <extension> to an <extValue> element.

   Below is example of converting the DS Delegation Signer (DS) Data Interface <info>
   response example in (see Section 5.1.2 of
   [RFC5910] [RFC5910]) converted 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:     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
   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>
   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.  Signaling Client and Server Support

   This document does not define new EPP protocol elements but rather
   specifies an operational practice using the existing EPP protocol,
   where the client and the server can signal support for the
   operational practice using a namespace URI in the login and greeting
   extension services.  The namespace URI
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0" is used to
   signal support for the operational practice.  The client includes the
   namespace URI in an <svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730] <login> Command.
   command [RFC5730].  The server includes the namespace URI in an
   <svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730] Greeting. greeting [RFC5730].

   A client that receives the namespace URI in the server's Greeting greeting
   extension services can expect the following supported behavior by the
   server:

   1.  Support

   *  support unhandled namespace object-level extensions and command-
      response extensions in EPP poll messages, per Section 6.
   2.  Support 6

   *  support the option of unhandled namespace command-response
      extensions in general EPP responses, per Section 5. 5

   A server that receives the namespace URI in the client's <login>
   Command
   command extension services can expect the following supported
   behavior by the client:

   1.  Support

   *  support monitoring the EPP poll messages and general EPP responses
      for unhandled namespaces. namespaces

5.  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. response that is not a poll message.  The use of the
   unhandled namespace approach for poll message poll-message EPP responses is
   defined in Section 6.  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 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,
   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 the <extValue> element element,
   per Section 3.2.

   Below is an example of converting the a domain name <info> response example in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC3915] [RFC5731]
   converted to an unhandled
   namespace response.

   [RFC5731] domain name <info> response with the unhandled [RFC3915] <rgp:infData> element (see Section 4.1.1 of
   [RFC3915]) 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:     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
   S:     xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
   S:     epp-1.0.xsd">
   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:           xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0
   S:           rgp-1.0.xsd">
   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:        xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
   S:        domain-1.0.xsd">
   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>

6.  Usage with Poll Message 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 a <poll>
   message
   response.  The server inserts poll messages into the client's poll
   queue independent of knowing the supported client login
   services, therefore services;
   therefore, there may be unhandled object-level extensions and command-
   response
   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 metadata 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, change poll message, as defined in Section 3.1.2 of [RFC8590],
   which is an extension of any EPP object, is an example of applying
   the unhandled namespace approach for EPP <poll> message responses.  Below are
   examples of converting the domain name <info> response example in
   Section 3.1.2 of [RFC8590] to an unhandled namespace response.  The
   object that will be used in the examples is a
   [RFC5731] domain name object.

   [RFC5731] object
   [RFC5731].

   Below is a domain name <info> <poll> message response [RFC5731] with the
   unhandled [RFC8590] <changePoll:changeData> element [RFC8590] included under an
   <extValue> element: 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 lang="en-US">
   S:        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:              2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</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 count="201" id="1">
   S:      <qDate>2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</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>domain.example</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:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
   S:        <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
   S:        <domain:crDate>2012-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
   S:        <domain:exDate>2014-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</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]

   Below is an unhandled domain name <info> <poll> message response [RFC5731]
   and the unhandled [RFC8590] <changePoll:changeData> element [RFC8590] included
   under an <extValue> element: 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:          <domain:infData
   S:            xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
   S:            <domain:name>domain.example</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:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
   S:            <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
   S:            <domain:crDate>2012-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
   S:            <domain:exDate>2014-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</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=
   S:              "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
   S:            state="after">
   S:            <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
   S:            <changePoll:date>
   S:              2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</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 count="201" id="1">
   S:      <qDate>2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</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>

7.  Implementation Considerations

   There are implementation considerations for the client and the server
   to help address the risk of the client ignoring unhandled namespace
   information included in an EPP response that is needed to meet
   technical, policy, or legal requirements.

7.1.  Client Implementation Considerations

   To reduce the likelihood of a client receiving unhandled namespace
   information, the client should consider implementing the following:

   1.  Ensure that the client presents the complete set of what it
       supports when presenting its login services.  If there are gaps
       between the services supported by the client and the login
       services included in the login command, the client may receive
       unhandled namespace information that the client could have
       supported.

   2.  Support all of the services included in the server greeting
       services that may be included in an EPP response, including the
       poll queue
       <poll> responses.  The client should evaluate the gaps between
       the greeting services and the login services provided in the
       login command to identify extensions that need to be supported.

   3.  Proactively monitor for unhandled namespace information in the
       EPP responses by looking for the inclusion of the <extValue>
       element in successful responses, recording record the unsupported namespace
       included in the <reason> element, and recording record the unhandled
       namespace information included in the <value> element for later
       processing.  The unhandled namespace should be implemented by the
       client to ensure that information is processed fully in future
       EPP responses.

7.2.  Server Implementation Considerations

   To assist the clients in recognizing unhandled namespaces, the server
   should consider implementing the following:

   1.  Monitor for returning unhandled namespace information to clients
       and report it to the clients out-of-band out of band to EPP EPP, so the clients
       can add support for the unhandled namespaces.

   2.  Look for the unhandled namespace support in the login services
       when returning optional unhandled namespace information in
       General
       general EPP Responses. responses.

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  XML Namespace

   This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
   registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].  The following URI
   assignment is requested of IANA:

   Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace: has been made by IANA.

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0
   Registrant Contact:  IESG
   XML:  None.  Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.

8.2.  EPP Extension Registry

   The EPP operational practice described in this document should be has been
   registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning
   Protocol (EPP)" registry described in [RFC7451].  The details of the
   registration are as follows:

   Name of Extension:  "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled
      Namespaces"
   Document status: Status:  Standards Track
   Reference: (insert reference to  RFC version of this document)

   Registrant Name and Email Address: 9038
   Registrant:  IETF, <iesg@ietf.org>
   TLDs:  Any
   IPR Disclosure:  None
   Status:  Active
   Notes:  None

9.  Implementation Status

   Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
   RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.  Security Considerations

   This section records the status of known implementations of the document does not provide any security services beyond those
   described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol defined layers used by this specification at the time of posting of this
   [RFC7942]. EPP.  The description of implementations
   security considerations described in this section is
   intended these other specifications apply
   to assist this specification as well.  Since the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
   drafts to RFCs.  Please note unhandled namespace content
   is XML that the listing of any individual
   implementation here does is not imply endorsement processed in the first pass by the IETF.
   Furthermore, no effort has been spent XML parser, the
   client SHOULD validate the XML when the content is processed 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".

9.1.  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.

   Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License

   Contact: jgould@verisign.com

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

9.2.  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

10.  Security Considerations

   This document does 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.  Since the unhandled namespace context
   is XML that is not processed in the first pass by the XML parser, the
   client SHOULD validate the XML when the content is processed to
   protect against
   protect against the inclusion of malicious content.

11.

12.

10.  References

12.1.

10.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

12.2.

   [W3C.REC-xml11-20060816]
              Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E.,
              Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language
              (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-xml11-20060816, 16 August 2006,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8590]  Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
              Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 8590,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8590, May 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8590>.

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.

   3.  added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at
       Implementation Status

A.2.  Change from 01 to 02

   1.  Ping update

A.3.  Change from 02 to REGEXT 00

   1.  Changed to regext working group draft by changing draft-gould-
       casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces to draft-ietf-regext-
       unhandled-namespaces.

A.4.  Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01

   1.  Added the "Signaling Client and Server Support" section to
       describe the mechanism

Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to signal support for the BCP by the
       client and the server.
   2.  Added the IANA Considerations section with the registration of
       the unhandled namespaces XML namespace and the registration of
       the EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) in the EPP Extension
       Registry.

A.5.  Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02

   1.  Filled in the acknowledgements section.
   2.  Changed the reference from RFC 5730 to RFC 5731 for the transfer
       example in section 3.1 "Unhandled Object-Level" Extension.
   3.  Updated the XML namespace to
       urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0, which
       removed bcp from the namespace and bumped the version from 0.1
       and 1.0.  Inclusion of bcp in the XML namespace was discussed at
       the REGEXT interim meeting.

A.6.  Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03

   1.  Converted from xml2rfc v2 to v3.
   2.  Updated Acknowledgements to match the approach taken by the RFC
       Editor with draft-ietf-regext-login-security.
   3.  Changed reference of ietf-regext-change-poll to RFC 8590.

A.7.  Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04

   1.  Changed from Best Current Practice (BCP) to Standards Track based
       on mailing list discussion.
   2.  Revised the dates in the examples to be more up-to-date.

A.8.  Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05

   1.  Based on feedback from Thomas Corte, added a description of the
       <extValue> element in RFC 5730 and it being extended to support
       returning unhandled namespace information.
   2.  Based on feedback from Thomas Corte, added a Implementation
       Considerations section to cover client and server implementation
       recommendations such as monitoring unhandled namespaces in the
       server to report to the clients out-of-band and monitoring for
       responses containing unhanded namespace information in the client
       to proactively add support for the unhandled namespaces.
   3.  Moved RFC 3735 and RFC 7451 to informative references to address
       down reference errors in idnits.

A.9.  Change from REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06

   1.  Nit updates made based on the feedback provided by the Document
       Shepherd, David Smith.

A.10.  Change from REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07

   Updates based on the Barry Leiba (AD) feedback:

   1.  Simplified the abstract based on the proposal provided by the AD.
   2.  In section 1.1, updated to use the new BCP 14 boilerplate and add
       a normative reference to RFC 8174.
   3.  In section 1.1, changed "REQUIRED feature of this protocol" to
       "required feature of this protocol".
   4.  In section 3, added "by the XML schema" in "disabled by the XML
       schema in [RFC5730]" to clarify the statement.
   5.  In section 8.2, changed the Registrant Name from "IESG" to
       "IETF".
   6.  In section 10, changed "The document do not provide" to "This
       document does not provide".
   7.  In section 10, added the sentence "Since the unhandled namespace
       context is XML that is not processed in the first pass by the XML
       parser, the client SHOULD consider validating the XML when the
       content is processed to protect against the inclusion of
       malicious content.".

A.11.  Change from REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08

   1.  Nit updates made based on the feedback provided by Peter Yee.
   2.  Update to the definition of the <value> element based on feedback
       from Sabrina Tanamal.
   3.  Added a sentence in the Introduction section to cover the poison
       poll message motivation based on feedback from Qin Wu.

   4.  Changed "does not define new protocol" to "does not define new
       EPP protocol elements" based on feedback from Erik Kline.
   5.  Changed to use "apply" instead of "support" language in Section 3
       based on feedback from Benjamin Kaduk.
   6.  Updated the examples that reference RFC examples to reference the
       RFC section of the example and have the starting XML match based
       on feedback from Benjamin Kaduk.
   7.  Changed "SHOULD consider validating" to "SHOULD validate" in the
       Security Considerations section based on feedback from Benjamin
       Kaduk.
   8.  Moved RFC 3915, RFC 5910, and RFC 8590 as informational
       references based on feedback from Benjamin Kaduk.

Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank thank the following persons people for their feedback and
   suggestions: Thomas Corte, Scott Hollenbeck, Patrick Mevzek, and
   Marcel Parodi.

Authors' Addresses

   James Gould
   VeriSign, Inc.
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA 20190
   United States of America

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

   Martin Casanova
   SWITCH
   P.O. Box
   CH-8021 Zurich
   Switzerland

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