GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3375

Network Working Group S. Hollenbeck Request for Comments: 3375 Verisign, Inc. Category: Informational September 2002

          Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 This document describes high-level functional and interface
 requirements for a client-server protocol for the registration and
 management of Internet domain names in shared registries.  Specific
 technical requirements detailed for protocol design are not presented
 here.  Instead, this document focuses on the basic functions and
 interfaces required of a protocol to support multiple registry and
 registrar operational models.

Conventions Used In This Document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction .......................................  2
 1.1 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations ...........  2
 2.  General Description ................................  4
 2.1 System Perspective .................................  4
 2.2 System Functions ...................................  4
 2.3 User Characteristics ...............................  5
 2.4 Assumptions ........................................  5
 3.  Functional Requirements ............................  5
 3.1 Session Management .................................  6
 3.2 Identification and Authentication ..................  6
 3.3 Transaction Identification .........................  7
 3.4 Object Management ..................................  7
 3.5 Domain Status Indicators ........................... 13

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 1] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 3.6 Transaction Completion Status ...................... 13
 4.  External Interface Requirements .................... 14
 4.1 User, Hardware, and Software Interfaces ............ 14
 4.2 Communications Interfaces .......................... 14
 5.  Performance Requirements ........................... 14
 6.  Design Constraints ................................. 14
 6.1 Standards Compliance ............................... 14
 6.2 Hardware Limitations ............................... 15
 7.  Service Attributes ................................. 15
 7.1 Reliability ........................................ 15
 7.2 Availability ....................................... 15
 7.3 Scalability ........................................ 16
 7.4 Maintainability .................................... 16
 7.5 Extensibility ...................................... 16
 7.6 Security ........................................... 16
 8.  Other Requirements ................................. 17
 8.1 Database Requirements .............................. 17
 8.2 Operational Requirements ........................... 17
 8.3 Site Adaptation Requirements ....................... 17
 8.4 Data Collection Requirements ....................... 17
 9.  Internationalization Requirements .................. 18
 10. IANA Considerations ................................ 18
 11. Security Considerations ............................ 18
 12. Acknowledgements ................................... 19
 13. References ......................................... 19
 14. Editor's Address ................................... 20
 15. Full Copyright Statement ........................... 21

1. Introduction

 The advent of shared domain name registration systems illustrates the
 utility of a common, generic protocol for registry-registrar
 interaction.  A standard generic protocol will allow registrars to
 communicate with multiple registries through a common interface,
 reducing operational complexity.  This document describes high level
 functional and interface requirements for a generic provisioning
 protocol suitable for registry-registrar operations.  Detailed
 technical requirements are not addressed in this document.

1.1 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

 ccTLD: Country Code Top Level Domain.  ".us" is an example of a
 ccTLD.
 DNS: Domain Name System
 gTLD: Generic Top Level Domain.  ".com" is an example of a gTLD.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 2] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force
 IP Address: Either or both IPv4 or IPv6 address.
 IPv4: Internet Protocol version 4
 IPv6: Internet Protocol version 6
 RRP: Registry-Registrar Protocol
 TLD: Top Level Domain.  A generic term used to describe both gTLDs
 and ccTLDs that exist under the top-level root of the domain name
 hierarchy.
 Exclusive Registration System: A domain name registration system in
 which registry services are limited to a single registrar.  Exclusive
 Registration Systems are either loosely coupled (in which case the
 separation between registry and registrar systems is readily
 evident), or tightly coupled (in which case the separation between
 registry and registrar systems is obscure).
 Name Space: The range of values that can be assigned within a
 particular node of the domain name hierarchy.
 Object: A generic term used to describe entities that are created,
 updated, deleted, and otherwise managed by a generic registry-
 registrar protocol.
 Registrant: An entity that registers domain names in a registry
 through the services provided by a registrar.  Registrants include
 individuals, organizations, and corporations.
 Registrar: An entity that provides front-end domain name registration
 services to registrants, providing a public interface to registry
 services.
 Registry: An entity that provides back-end domain name registration
 services to registrars, managing a central repository of information
 associated with domain name delegations.  A registry is typically
 responsible for publication and distribution of zone files used by
 the Domain Name System.
 Shared Registration System: A domain name registration system in
 which registry services are shared among multiple independent
 registrars.  Shared Registration Systems require a loose coupling
 between registrars and a registry.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 3] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 Thick Registry: A registry in which all of the information associated
 with registered entities, including both technical information
 (information needed to produce zone files) and social information
 (information needed to implement operational, business, or legal
 practices), is stored within the registry repository.
 Thin Registry: A registry in which all elements of the social
 information associated with registered entities is distributed
 between a shared registry and the registrars served by the registry.
 Zone: The complete set of information for a particular "pruned"
 subtree of the domain space.  The zone concept is described fully in
 [RFC1035].

2. General Description

 A basic understanding of domain name registration systems provides
 focus for the enumeration of functional and interface requirements of
 a protocol to serve those systems.  This section provides a high-
 level description of domain name registration systems to provide
 context for the requirements identified later in this document.

2.1 System Perspective

 A domain name registration system consists of a protocol and
 associated software and hardware that permits registrars to provide
 Internet domain name registration services within the name spaces
 administered by a registry.  A registration system can be shared
 among multiple competing registrars, or it can be served by a single
 registrar that is either tightly or loosely coupled with back-end
 registry services.  The system providing registration services for
 the .com, .net, and .org gTLDs is an example of a shared registration
 system serving multiple competing registrars.  The systems providing
 registration services for some ccTLDs and the .gov and .mil gTLDs are
 examples of registration systems served by a single registrar.

2.2 System Functions

 Registrars access a registry through a protocol to register objects
 and perform object management functions.  Required functions include
 session management; object creation, update, renewal, and deletion;
 object query; and object transfer.
 A registry generates DNS zone files for the name spaces it serves.
 Zone files are created and distributed to a series of name servers
 that provide the foundation for the domain name system.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 4] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

2.3 User Characteristics

 Protocol users fall into two broad categories: entities that use
 protocol client implementations and entities that use protocol server
 implementations, though an entity can provide both client and server
 services if it provides intermediate services.  A protocol provides a
 loose coupling between these communicating entities.

2.4 Assumptions

 There is one and only one registry that is authoritative for a given
 name space and zone.
 A registry can be authoritative for more than one name space and
 zone.  Some registry operations can be billable.  The impact of a
 billable operation can be mitigated through the specification of
 non-billable operations that allow a registrar to make informed
 decisions before executing billable operations.
 A registry can choose to implement a subset of the features provided
 by a generic registry-registrar protocol.  A thin registry, for
 example, might not provide services to register social information.
 Specification of minimal implementation compliance requirements is
 thus an exercise left for a formal protocol definition document that
 addresses the functional requirements specified here.
 A protocol that meets the requirements described here can be called
 something other than "Generic Registry Registrar Protocol".
 The requirements described in this document are not intended to limit
 the set of objects that can be managed by a generic registry-
 registrar protocol.

3. Functional Requirements

 This section describes functional requirements for a registry-
 registrar protocol.  Technical requirements that describe how these
 requirements are to be met are out of scope for this document.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 5] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

3.1 Session Management

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly establish a
 client session with a registry server.
 [2] In a connection-oriented environment, a server MUST respond to
 connection attempts with information that identifies the server and
 the default server protocol version.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services that allow a client to request
 use of a specific protocol version as part of negotiating a session.
 [4] The protocol MUST provide services that allow a server to decline
 use of a specific protocol version as part of negotiating a session.
 [5] A session MUST NOT be established if the client and server are
 unable to reach agreement on the protocol version to be used for the
 requested session.
 [6] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly end an
 established session.
 [7] The protocol MUST provide services that provide transactional
 atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability in the advent of
 session management failures.
 [8] The protocol MUST provide services to confirm that a transaction
 has been completed if a session is aborted prematurely.

3.2 Identification and Authentication

 [1] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to
 identify registrar clients and registry servers before granting
 access to other protocol services.
 [2] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to
 authenticate registrar clients and registry servers before granting
 access to other protocol services.
 [3] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to
 negotiate an authentication mechanism acceptable to both client and
 server.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 6] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

3.3 Transaction Identification

 [1] Registry operations that create, modify, or delete objects MUST
 be associated with a registry-unique identifier.  The protocol MUST
 allow each transaction to be identified in a permanent and globally
 unique manner to facilitate temporal ordering and state management
 services.

3.4 Object Management

 This section describes requirements for object management, including
 identification, registration, association, update, transfer, renewal,
 deletion, and query.

3.4.1 Object Identification

 Some objects, such as name servers and contacts, have utility in
 multiple registries.  However, maintaining disjoint copies of object
 information in multiple registries can lead to inconsistencies that
 have adverse consequences for the Internet.  For example, changing a
 name server name in one registry, but not in a second registry that
 refers to the server for domain name delegation, can produce
 unexpected DNS query results.
 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to associate an object
 identifier with every object.
 [2] Object identifiers MUST be globally unique.
 [3] An object's identifier MUST NOT change during the lifetime of the
 object in a particular repository, even if administrative control of
 the object changes over time.
 [4] An object identifier MUST contain information that unambiguously
 identifies the object.
 [5] Object identifier format specified by the protocol SHOULD be
 easily parsed and understood by humans.
 [6] An object's identifier MUST be generated and stored when an
 object is created.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 7] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

3.4.2 Object Registration

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to register Internet domain
 names.
 [2] The protocol MUST permit a starting and ending time for a domain
 name registration to be negotiated, thereby allowing a registry to
 implement policies allowing a range of registration validity periods
 (the start and end points in time during which one normally assumes
 that an object will be active), and enabling registrars to select a
 period for each registration they submit from within the valid range
 based on out-of-band negotiation between the registrar and the
 registrant.  Registries SHOULD be allowed to accept indefinitely
 valid registrations if the policy that they are implementing permits,
 and to specify a default validity period if one is not selected by a
 registrar.  Registries MUST be allowed to specify minimal validity
 periods consistent with prevailing or preferred practices for fee-
 for-service recovery.  The protocol MUST provide features to ensure
 that both registry and registrar have a mutual understanding of the
 validity period at the conclusion of a successful registration event.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services to register name servers.
 Name server registration MUST NOT be limited to a specific period of
 time.  Name servers MUST be registered with a valid IPv4 or IPv6
 address when a "glue record" is required for delegation.  A name
 server MAY be registered with multiple IP addresses.  Multiple name
 servers using distinct server names MAY share an IP address.
 [4] The protocol MUST provide services to manage delegation of zone
 authority.  Names of name servers MUST NOT be required to be tied to
 the name of the zone(s) for which the server is authoritative.
 [5] The protocol MUST provide services to register social information
 describing human and organizational entities.  Registration of social
 information MUST NOT be limited to a specific period of time.  Social
 information MAY include a name (individual name, organization name,
 or both), address (including street address, city, state or province
 (if applicable), postal code, and country), voice telephone number,
 email address, and facsimile telephone number.
 [6] Protocol services to register an object MUST be available to all
 authorized registrars.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 8] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

3.4.3 Object Association

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to associate name servers with
 domain names to delegate authority for zones.  A domain name MAY have
 multiple authoritative name servers.  Name servers MAY be
 authoritative for multiple zones.
 [2] The protocol MUST provide services to associate IP addresses with
 name servers.  A name server MAY have multiple IP addresses.  An IP
 address MAY be associated with multiple name server registrations.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services to associate social
 information with other objects.  Social information associations MUST
 be identified by type.  "Registrant" is an example social information
 type that might be associated with an object such as a domain name.
 [4] The protocol MUST provide services to associate object management
 capabilities on a per-registrar basis.
 [5] Some managed objects represent shared resources that might be
 referenced by multiple registrars.  The protocol MUST provide
 services that allow a registrar to associate an existing shared
 resource object with other registered objects sponsored by a second
 registrar.  For example, authority for the example.tld zone
 (example.tld domain object managed by registrar X) and authority for
 the test.tld zone (test.tld domain object managed by registrar Y)
 might be delegated to server ns1.example.tld (managed by registrar
 X).  Registrar X maintains administrative control over domain object
 example.tld and server object ns1.example.tld, and registrar Y
 maintains administrative control over domain object test.tld.
 Registrar Y does not have administrative control over server object
 ns1.example.tld.

3.4.4 Object Update

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to update information
 associated with registered Internet domain names.
 [2] The protocol MUST provide services to update information
 associated with registered name servers.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services to update social information
 associated with registered human and organizational entities.
 [4] The protocol MUST provide services to limit requests to update a
 registered object to the registrar that currently sponsors the
 registered object.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 9] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 [5] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly reject
 unauthorized attempts to update a registered object.

3.4.5 Object Transfer

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to transfer domain names among
 authorized registrars.  Name servers registered in a domain being
 transferred MUST be transferred along with the domain itself.  For
 example, name servers "ns1.example.tld" and "ns2.example.tld" MUST be
 implicitly transferred when domain "example.tld" is transferred.
 [2] The protocol MUST provide services to describe all objects,
 including associated objects, that are transferred as a result of an
 object transfer.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services to transfer social information
 objects among authorized registrars.
 [4] Protocol transfer requests MUST be initiated by the registrar who
 wishes to become the new administrator of an object.
 [5] The protocol MUST provide services to confirm registrar
 authorization to transfer an object.
 [6] The protocol MUST provide services that allow the requesting
 registrar to cancel a requested object transfer before the request
 has been approved or rejected by the original sponsoring registrar.
 Requests to cancel the transfer of registered objects MUST be limited
 to the registrar that requested transfer of the registered object.
 Unauthorized attempts to cancel the transfer of a registered object
 MUST be explicitly rejected.
 [7] The protocol MUST provide services that allow the original
 sponsoring registrar to approve or reject a requested object
 transfer.  Requests to approve or reject the transfer of registered
 objects MUST be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the
 registered object.  Unauthorized attempts to approve or reject the
 transfer of a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected.
 [8] The protocol MUST provide services that allow both the original
 sponsoring registrar and the potential new registrar to monitor the
 status of both pending and completed transfer requests.
 [9] Transfer of an object MAY extend the object's registration
 period.  If an object's registration period will be extended as the
 result of a transfer, the new expiration date and time MUST be
 returned after successful completion of a transfer request.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 10] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 [10] Requests to initiate the transfer of a registered object MUST be
 available to all authorized registrars.
 [11] Registrars might become non-functional and unable to respond to
 transfer requests.  It might be necessary for one registrar to assume
 management responsibility for the objects associated with another
 registrar in the event of registrar failure.  The protocol MUST NOT
 restrict the ability to transfer objects in the event of registrar
 failure.

3.4.6 Object Renewal/Extension

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to renew or extend the
 validity period of registered domain names.  If applicable, the new
 expiration date and time MUST be returned after successful completion
 of a request to renew or extend the validity period.
 [2] Requests to renew or extend the validity period of a registered
 object MUST be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the
 registered object.  Unauthorized attempts to renew or extend the
 validity period of a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected.

3.4.7 Object Deletion

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a domain name from
 the registry.
 [2] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a name server from
 the registry.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a social information
 object from the registry.
 [4] Requests to remove a registered object MUST be limited to the
 registrar that currently sponsors the registered object.
 Unauthorized attempts to remove a registered object MUST be
 explicitly rejected.

3.4.8 Object Existence Query

 This section describes requirements for a lightweight query mechanism
 whose sole purpose is to determine if an object exists in a registry.
 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a domain name
 exists in the registry.  Domain names MUST be searchable by fully
 qualified name.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 11] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 [2] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a name server
 exists in the registry.  Name servers MUST be searchable by fully
 qualified name.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a social
 information object exists in the registry.  Social information MUST
 be searchable by a registry-unique identifier.
 [4] A query to determine if an object exists in the registry MUST
 return only a positive or negative response so that server software
 that responds to this query can be optimized for speed.
 [5] Requests to determine the existence of a registered object MUST
 be available to all authorized registrars.

3.4.9 Object Information Query

 This section describes requirements for a query mechanism whose
 purpose is to provide detailed information describing objects that
 exist in a registry.
 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve information
 describing a domain name from the registry.  Returned information
 MUST include the identifier of the current sponsoring registrar, the
 identifier of the registrar that originally registered the domain,
 the creation date and time, the expiration date and time (if any),
 the date and time of the last successful update (if any), the
 identifier of the registrar that performed the last update, the date
 and time of last completed transfer (if any), the current status of
 the domain, authorization information, identifiers describing social
 information associated with the domain, and the subordinate name
 servers registered in the domain.  Authorization information MUST
 only be returned to the current sponsoring registrar.
 [2] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve information
 describing a name server from the registry.  Returned information
 MUST include the identifier of the current sponsoring registrar, the
 identifier of the registrar that originally registered the name
 server, the creation date and time, the date and time of the last
 successful update (if any), the identifier of the registrar that
 performed the last update, the date and time of last completed
 transfer (if any), and the IP addresses currently associated with the
 name server.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve social information
 from the registry.  Returned information MUST include identification
 attributes (which MAY include name, address, telephone numbers, and
 email address), the identifier of the registrar that originally

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 12] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 registered the information, the creation date and time, the date and
 time of the last successful update (if any), the identifier of the
 registrar that performed the last update, the date and time of last
 completed transfer (if any), and authorization information.
 Authorization information MUST only be returned to the current
 sponsoring registrar.
 [4] The protocol MUST provide services to identify all associated
 object references, such as name servers associated with domains
 (including delegations and hierarchical relationships) and contacts
 associated with domains.  This information MUST be visible if the
 object associations have an impact on the success or failure of
 protocol operations.
 [5] Requests to retrieve information describing a registered object
 MAY be granted by the registrar that currently sponsors the
 registered object.  Unauthorized attempts to retrieve information
 describing a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected.

3.5 Domain Status Indicators

 [1] The protocol MUST provide status indicators that identify the
 operational state of a domain name.  Indicators MAY be provided to
 identify a newly created state (the domain has been registered but
 has not yet appeared in a zone), a normal active state (the domain
 can be modified and is published in a zone), an inactive state (the
 domain can be modified but is not published in a zone because it has
 no authoritative name servers), a hold state (the domain can not be
 modified and is not published in a zone), a lock state (the domain
 can not be modified and is published in a zone), a pending transfer
 state, and a pending removal state.
 [2] If provided, protocol indicators for hold and lock status MUST
 allow independent setting by both registry and registrar.
 [3] A domain MAY have multiple statuses at any given time.  Some
 statuses MAY be mutually exclusive.

3.6 Transaction Completion Status

 [1] The protocol MUST provide services that unambiguously note the
 success or failure of every transaction.  Individual success and
 error conditions MUST be noted distinctly.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 13] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

4. External Interface Requirements

 External interfaces define the interaction points between a system
 and entities that communicate with the system.  Specific areas of
 interest include user interfaces, hardware interfaces, software
 interfaces, and communications interfaces.

4.1 User, Hardware, and Software Interfaces

 [1] The protocol MUST define a wire format for data exchange, not an
 application design for user, hardware, or software interfaces so that
 any application able to create the same bits on the wire, and to
 maintain the image of the same integrity constraints, is a valid
 implementation of the protocol.

4.2 Communications Interfaces

 [1] Registries, registrars, and registrants interact using a wide
 spectrum of communications interfaces built upon multiple protocols,
 including transport layer protocols such as TCP and application layer
 protocols such as SMTP.  The protocol MUST only be run over IETF
 approved protocols that feature congestion control, such as TCP and
 SCTP.

5. Performance Requirements

 [1] Run-time performance is an absolutely critical aspect of protocol
 usability.  While performance is very heavily dependent on the
 hardware and software architecture that implements a protocol,
 protocol features can have a direct impact on the ability of the
 underlying architecture to provide optimal performance.  The protocol
 MUST be usable in both high volume and low volume operating
 environments.

6. Design Constraints

 Protocol designers need to be aware of issues beyond functional and
 interface requirements when balancing protocol design decisions.
 This section describes additional factors that might have an impact
 on protocol design, including standards compliance and hardware
 limitations.

6.1 Standards Compliance

 [1] The protocol MUST conform to current IETF standards.  Standards
 for domain and host name syntax, IP address syntax, security, and
 transport are particularly relevant.  Emerging standards for the
 Domain Name System MUST be considered as they approach maturity.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 14] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 [2] The protocol MUST NOT reinvent services offered by lower layer
 protocol standards.  For example, the use of a transport that
 provides reliability is to be chosen over use of a non-reliable
 transport with the protocol itself using retransmission to achieve
 reliability.

6.2 Hardware Limitations

 [1] The protocol MUST NOT define any features that preclude hardware
 independence.

7. Service Attributes

 Elements of service beyond functional and interface requirements are
 essential factors to consider as part of a protocol design effort.
 This section describes several important service elements to be
 addressed by protocol designers, including reliability, availability,
 scalability, maintainability, extensibility, and security.

7.1 Reliability

 [1] Reliability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol
 provides a consistent, dependable level of service.  Reliability is
 an important attribute for a domain name management protocol.  An
 unreliable protocol increases the risk of data exchange errors, which
 at one extreme can have a direct impact on protocol usability and at
 the other extreme can introduce discontinuity between registry and
 registrar data stores.  The protocol MUST include features that
 maximize reliability at the application protocol layer. Services
 provided by underlying transport, session, and presentation protocols
 SHOULD also be considered when addressing application protocol
 reliability.
 [2] The protocol MUST be run over the most reliable transport option
 available in a given environment.  The protocol MUST NOT implement a
 service that is otherwise available in an applicable standard
 transport.
 [3] Default protocol actions for when a request or event times out
 MUST be well defined.

7.2 Availability

 [1] Availability is a measure of the extent to which the services
 provided by a protocol are accessible for an intended use.
 Availability of an application layer protocol is primarily dependent
 on the software and hardware systems that implement the protocol.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 15] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 The protocol MUST NOT include any features that impinge on the
 underlying availability of the software and hardware systems needed
 to service the protocol.

7.3 Scalability

 [1] Scalability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can
 accommodate use growth while preserving acceptable operational
 characteristics.  The protocol MUST be capable of operating at an
 acceptable level as the load on registry and registrar systems
 increases.

7.4 Maintainability

 [1] Maintainability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol
 can be adapted or modified to address unforeseen operational needs or
 defects.  The protocol SHOULD be developed under the nominal working
 group processes of the IETF to provide a well-known mechanism for
 ongoing maintenance.

7.5 Extensibility

 [1] Extensibility is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can
 be adapted for future uses that were not readily evident when the
 protocol was originally designed.  The protocol SHOULD provide
 features that at a minimum allow for the management of new object
 types without requiring revisions to the protocol itself.
 [2] The requirements described in this document are not intended to
 limit the set of objects that might be managed by the protocol.  The
 protocol MUST include features that allow extension to object types
 that are not described in this document.
 [3] The protocol MUST provide an optional field within all commands
 whose format and use will be controlled by individual registry
 policy.

7.6 Security

 [1] Transactional privacy and integrity services MUST be available at
 some protocol layer.
 [2] This document describes requirements for basic user
 identification and authentication services.  A generic protocol MAY
 include additional security services to protect against the attacks
 described here.  A generic protocol MUST depend on other-layered
 protocols to provide security services that are not provided in the
 generic protocol itself.  A generic protocol that relies on security

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 16] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 services from other-layered protocols MUST specify the protocol
 layers needed to provide security services.

8. Other Requirements

 Certain aspects of anticipated operational environments have to be
 considered when designing a generic registry-registrar protocol.
 Areas of concern include database operations, operations, site
 adaptation, and data collection.

8.1 Database Requirements

 [1] The protocol MUST NOT have any database dependencies.  However,
 efficient use of database operations and resources has to be
 considered as part of the protocol design effort.  The protocol
 SHOULD provide atomic features that can be efficiently implemented to
 minimize database load.

8.2 Operational Requirements

 [1] Registry-registrar interactions at the protocol level SHOULD
 operate without human intervention.  However, intermediate services
 that preserve the integrity of the protocol MAY be provided.  For
 example, an intermediate service that determines if a registrant is
 authorized to register a name in a name space can be provided.
 [2] The protocol MUST provide services that allow clients and servers
 to maintain a consistent understanding of the current date and time
 to effectively manage objects with temporal properties.

8.3 Site Adaptation Requirements

 [1] Registries and registrars have varying business and operational
 requirements.  Several factors, including governance standards, local
 laws, customs, and business practices all play roles in determining
 how registries and registrars are operated.  The protocol MUST be
 flexible enough to operate in diverse registry-registrar
 environments.

8.4 Data Collection Requirements

 [1] Some of the data exchanged between a registrar and registry might
 be considered personal, private, or otherwise sensitive.  Disclosure
 of such information might be restricted by laws and/or business
 practices.  The protocol MUST provide services to identify data
 collection policies.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 17] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 [2] Some of the social information exchanged between a registrar and
 registry might be required to create, manage, or operate Internet or
 DNS infrastructure facilities, such as zone files.  Such information
 is subject to public disclosure per relevant IETF standards.

9. Internationalization Requirements

 [1] [RFC1035] describes Internet host and domain names using
 characters traditionally found in a subset of the 7-bit US-ASCII
 character set.  More recent standards, such as [RFC2130] and
 [RFC2277], describe the need to develop protocols for an
 international Internet.  These and other standards MUST be considered
 during the protocol design process to ensure world-wide usability of
 a generic registry registrar protocol.
 [2] The protocol MUST allow exchange of data in formats consistent
 with current international agreements for the representation of such
 objects.  In particular, this means that addresses MUST include
 country, that telephone numbers MUST start with the international
 prefix "+", and that appropriate thought be given to the usability of
 information in both local and international contexts.  This means
 that some elements (like names and addresses) might need to be
 represented multiple times, or formatted for different contexts (for
 instance English/French in Canada, or Latin/ideographic in Japan).
 [3] All date and time values specified in a generic registry-
 registrar protocol MUST be expressed in Universal Coordinated Time.
 Dates and times MUST include information to represent a four-digit
 calendar year, a calendar month, a calendar day, hours, minutes,
 seconds, fractional seconds, and the time zone for Universal
 Coordinated Time.  Calendars apart from the Gregorian calendar MUST
 NOT be used

10. IANA Considerations

 This document does not require any action on the part of IANA.
 Protocol specifications that require IANA action MUST follow the
 guidelines described in [RFC2434].

11. Security Considerations

 Security services, including confidentiality, authentication, access
 control, integrity, and non-repudiation SHOULD be applied to protect
 interactions between registries and registrars as appropriate.
 Confidentiality services protect sensitive exchanged information from
 inadvertent disclosure.  Authentication services confirm the claimed
 identity of registries and registrars before engaging in online
 transactions.  Access control services control access to data and

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 18] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 services based on identity.  Integrity services guarantee that
 exchanged data has not been altered between the registry and the
 registrar.  Non-repudiation services provide assurance that the
 sender of a transaction can not deny being the source of the
 transaction, and that the recipient cannot deny being the receiver of
 the transaction.

12. Acknowledgements

 This document was originally written as an individual submission
 Internet-Draft.  The provreg working group later adopted it as a
 working group document and provided many invaluable comments and
 suggested improvements.  The author wishes to acknowledge the efforts
 of WG chairs Edward Lewis and Jaap Akkerhuis for their process and
 editorial contributions.
 Specific comments that helped guide development of this document were
 provided by Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Christopher Ambler, Karl
 Auerbach, Jorg Bauer, George Belotsky, Eric Brunner-Williams, Jordyn
 Buchanan, Randy Bush, Bruce Campbell, Dan Cohen, Andre Cormier, Kent
 Crispin, Dave Crocker, Ayesha Damaraju, Lucio De Re, Mats Dufberg,
 Peter Eisenhauer, Sheer El-Showk, Urs Eppenberger, Patrik Faltstrom,
 Paul George, Patrick Greenwell, Jarle Greipsland, Olivier Guillard,
 Alf Hansen, Paul Hoffman, Paul Kane, Shane Kerr, Elmar Knipp, Mike
 Lampson, Matt Larson, Ping Lu, Klaus Malorny, Bill Manning, Michael
 Mealling, Patrick Mevzek, Peter Mott, Catherine Murphy, Martin
 Oldfield, Geva Patz, Elisabeth Porteneuve, Ross Wm. Rader, Budi
 Rahardjo, Annie Renard, Scott Rose, Takeshi Saigoh, Marcos Sanz,
 Marcel Schneider, J.  William Semich, James Seng, Richard Shockey,
 Brian Spolarich, William Tan, Stig Venaas, Herbert Vitzthum, and Rick
 Wesson.

13. References

Normative References:

 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
           IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
           October 1998.

Informative References:

 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
           Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 19] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

 [RFC2130] Weider, C., Preston, C., Simonsen, K., Alvestrand, H.,
           Atkinson, R., Cripsin, M. and P. Svanberg, "The Report of
           the IAB Character Set Workshop", RFC 2130, April 1997.
 [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
           Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

14. Editor's Address

 Scott Hollenbeck
 VeriSign Global Registry Services
 21345 Ridgetop Circle
 Dulles, VA 20166-6503
 USA
 EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.com

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 20] RFC 3375 Generic RRP Requirements September 2002

15. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Hollenbeck Informational [Page 21]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3375.txt · Last modified: 2002/09/12 16:55 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki