Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name MappingStatus of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the \"Internet Official Protocol Standards\" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).Abstract
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping for the provisioning and management of Internet domain names stored in a shared central repository. Specified in XML, the mapping defines EPP command syntax and semantics as applied to domain names. This document obsoletes RFC 3731.
Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Relationship of Domain Objects and Host Objects . . . . . 3 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Domain and Host Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Contact and Client Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Status Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Dates and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. Validity Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.6. Authorization Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7. Other DNS Resource Record Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.1. EPP Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 20071. Introduction This document describes an Internet domain name mapping for version 1.0 of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP). This mapping is specified using the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in [W3C.REC-xml-20040204] and XML Schema notation as described in [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] and [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]. This document obsoletes RFC 3731 [RFC3731]. [RFC4930] provides a complete description of EPP command and response structures. A thorough understanding of the base protocol specification is necessary to understand the mapping described in this document. XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the character case presented to develop a conforming implementation.1.1. Relationship of Domain Objects and Host Objects The EPP mapping for host objects is described in [RFC4932]. This document assumes that domain name objects have a superordinate relationship to subordinate host name objects. For example, domain name \"example.com\" has a superordinate relationship to host name \"ns1.example.com\". EPP actions (such as object transfers) that do not preserve this relationship MUST be explicitly disallowed. A host name object can be created in a repository for which no superordinate domain name object exists. For example, host name \"ns1.example.com\" can be created in the \".example\" repository so that DNS domains in \".example\" can be delegated to the host. Such hosts are described as \"external\" hosts in this specification since the name of the host does not belong to the name space of the repository in which the host is being used for delegation purposes. Whether a host is external or internal relates to the repository in which the host is being used for delegation purposes. Whether or not an internal host is subordinate relates to a domain within the repository. For example, host ns1.example1.com is a subordinate host of domain example1.com, but it is not a subordinate host of domain example2.com. ns1.example1.com can be used as a name server for example2.com. In this case, ns1.example1.com MUST be treated as an internal host, subject to the rules governing operations on subordinate hosts within the same repository. Name server hosts for domain delegation can be specified as either references to existing host objects or as domain attributes that describe a host machine. A server operator MUST use one name server Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 specification form consistently. A server operator that announces support for host objects in an EPP greeting MUST NOT allow domain attributes to describe a name server host machine. A server operator that does not announce support for host objects MUST allow domain attributes to describe a name server host machine. When domain attributes are used to describe a name server host machine, IP addresses SHOULD be required only as needed to generate DNS glue records. Name servers are specified within a element MUST contain one or more - Zero or more OPTIONAL Attribute value \"v6\" is used to note IPv6 address format. If the \"ip\" attribute is not specified, \"v4\" is the default attribute value. IP address syntax requirements are described in Section 2.5 of the EPP host mapping [RFC4932]. Example host object name server elements for domain example.com: Example host attribute name server elements for domain example.com: Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 20071.2. Conventions Used in This Document The key words \"MUST\ \"SHOULD\ document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. In examples, \"C:\" represents lines sent by a protocol client and \"S:\" represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol.2. Object Attributes An EPP domain object has attributes and associated values that can be viewed and modified by the sponsoring client or the server. This section describes each attribute type in detail. The formal syntax for the attribute values described here can be found in the \"Formal Syntax\" section of this document and in the appropriate normative references. 2.1. Domain and Host Names The syntax for domain and host names described in this document MUST conform to [RFC0952] as updated by [RFC1123]. At the time of this writing, RFC 3490 [RFC3490] describes a standard to use certain ASCII name labels to represent non-ASCII name labels. These conformance requirements might change as a result of progressing work in developing standards for internationalized domain names. A server MAY restrict allowable domain names to a particular top-level domain, second-level domain, or other domain for which the server is authoritative. The trailing dot required when these names are stored in a DNS zone is implicit and MUST NOT be provided when exchanging host and domain names. 2.2. Contact and Client Identifiers All EPP contacts are identified by a server-unique identifier. Contact identifiers are character strings with a specified minimum length, a specified maximum length, and a specified format. Contact identifiers use the \"clIDType\" client identifier syntax described in [RFC4930].2.3. Status Values A domain object MUST always have at least one associated status value. Status values can be set only by the client that sponsors a domain object and by the server on which the object resides. A client can change the status of a domain object using the EPP Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 A client MUST NOT alter status values set by the server. A server MAY alter or override status values set by a client subject to local server policies. The status of an object MAY change as a result of either a client-initiated transform command or an action performed by a server operator. Status values that can be added or removed by a client are prefixed with \"client\". Corresponding status values that can be added or removed by a server are prefixed with \"server\". Status values that do not begin with either \"client\" or \"server\" are server-managed. Status Value Descriptions: - clientDeleteProhibited, serverDeleteProhibited Requests to delete the object MUST be rejected. - clientHold, serverHold DNS delegation information MUST NOT be published for the object. - clientRenewProhibited, serverRenewProhibited Requests to renew the object MUST be rejected. - clientTransferProhibited, serverTransferProhibited Requests to transfer the object MUST be rejected. - clientUpdateProhibited, serverUpdateProhibited Requests to update the object (other than to remove this status) MUST be rejected. - inactive Delegation information has not been associated with the object. - ok This is the normal status value for an object that has no pending operations or prohibitions. This value is set and removed by the server as other status values are added or removed. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - pendingCreate, pendingDelete, pendingRenew, pendingTransfer, pendingUpdate A transform command has been processed for the object, but the action has not been completed by the server. Server operators can delay action completion for a variety of reasons, such as to allow for human review or third-party action. A transform command that is processed, but whose requested action is pending, is noted with response code 1001. When the requested action has been completed, the pendingCreate, pendingDelete, pendingRenew, pendingTransfer, or pendingUpdate status value MUST be removed. All clients involved in the transaction MUST be notified using a service message that the action has been completed and that the status of the object has changed. \"ok\" status MUST NOT be combined with any other status. \"pendingDelete\" status MUST NOT be combined with either \"clientDeleteProhibited\" or \"serverDeleteProhibited\" status. \"pendingRenew\" status MUST NOT be combined with either \"clientRenewProhibited\" or \"serverRenewProhibited\" status. \"pendingTransfer\" status MUST NOT be combined with either \"clientTransferProhibited\" or \"serverTransferProhibited\" status. \"pendingUpdate\" status MUST NOT be combined with either \"clientUpdateProhibited\" or \"serverUpdateProhibited\" status. The pendingCreate, pendingDelete, pendingRenew, pendingTransfer, and pendingUpdate status values MUST NOT be combined with each other. Other status combinations not expressly prohibited MAY be used.2.4. Dates and Times Date and time attribute values MUST be represented in Universal Coordinated Time (UTC) using the Gregorian calendar. The extended date-time form using upper case \"T\" and \"Z\" characters defined in [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] MUST be used to represent date-time values as XML Schema does not support truncated date-time forms or lower case \"T\" and \"Z\" characters. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 20072.5. Validity Periods A domain name object MAY have a specified validity period. If server policy supports domain object validity periods, the validity period is defined when a domain object is created, and it MAY be extended by the EPP policy, this specification does not define actions to be taken upon expiration of a domain object’s validity period. Validity periods are measured in years or months with the appropriate units specified using the \"unit\" attribute. Valid values for the \"unit\" attribute are \"y\" for years and \"m\" for months. The minimum allowable period value is one (1). The maximum allowable value is ninety-nine decimal (99). A server MAY support a lower maximum value. 2.6. Authorization Information Authorization information is associated with domain objects to facilitate transfer operations. Authorization information is assigned when a domain object is created, and it might be updated in the future. This specification describes password-based authorization information, though other mechanisms are possible.2.7. Other DNS Resource Record Attributes While the DNS allows many resource record types to be associated with a domain, this mapping only explicitly specifies elements that describe resource records used for domain delegation and resolution. Facilities to provision other domain-related resource record types can be developed by extending this mapping. The provisioning method described in this mapping separates discrete data elements by data type. This method of data definition allows XML Schema processors to perform basic syntax validation tasks, reducing ambiguity and the amount of parsing and syntax-checking work required of protocol processors. Provisioning and extension methods that aggregate data into opaque strings are possible, but such methods SHOULD NOT be used because they impose additional parsing, interpretation, and validation requirements on protocol processors. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 20073. EPP Command Mapping A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found in [RFC4930]. The command mappings described here are specifically for use in provisioning and managing Internet domain names via EPP.3.1. EPP Query Commands EPP provides three commands to retrieve domain information: repository, The EPP In addition to the standard EPP command elements, the - One or more C: C: C: C: Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 When a contains one or more - A completed. A value of \"1\" or \"true\" means that the object can be provisioned. A value of \"0\" or \"false\" means that the object can not be provisioned. - An OPTIONAL language previously negotiated with the client; an OPTIONAL \"lang\" attribute MAY be present to identify the language if the negotiated value is something other than the default value of \"en\" (English). Example S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if a The EPP authorization information, and server policy towards unauthorized clients. If the querying client is the sponsoring client, all available information MUST be returned. If the querying client is not the sponsoring client, but the client provides valid authorization information, all available information MUST be returned. If the querying client is not the sponsoring client, and the client does not provide valid authorization information, server policy determines which OPTIONAL elements are returned. In addition to the standard EPP command elements, the - A information describing only delegated hosts. A value of \"sub\" returns information describing only subordinate hosts. A value of \"none\" returns no information describing delegated or subordinate hosts. - An OPTIONAL associated contacts. An OPTIONAL \"roid\" attribute MUST be used to identify the registrant or contact object if and only if the given authInfo is associated with a registrant or contact object, and not the domain object itself. If this element is not provided or if the authorization information is invalid, server policy determines if the command is rejected or if response information will be returned to the client. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Example C: C: Example C: C: C: When an - A - A Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - Zero or more OPTIONAL - If supported by the server, one OPTIONAL - An OPTIONAL servers) associated with the domain object. See Section 1.1 for a description of the elements used to specify host objects or host attributes. - Zero or more OPTIONAL - A - An OPTIONAL - An OPTIONAL - An OPTIONAL - An OPTIONAL - An OPTIONAL Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - An OPTIONAL Example S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 A server with a different information return policy MAY provide less information in a response. Example S: S: S: S: S: S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if an 3.1.3. EPP The EPP transfer requests. In addition to the standard EPP command elements, the - A - An OPTIONAL associated contacts. An OPTIONAL \"roid\" attribute MUST be used to identify the registrant or contact object if and only if the given authInfo is associated with a registrant or contact object, and Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 not the domain object itself. If this element is not provided or if the authorization information is invalid, server policy determines if the command is rejected or if response information will be returned to the client. Example C: C: C: C: C: When a - A - A - A - A - A Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - A before an automated response action will be taken by the server. For all other status types, the value identifies the date and time when the request was completed. - An OPTIONAL S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if a EPP provides five commands to transform domain objects: Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Transform commands are typically processed and completed in real time. Server operators MAY receive and process transform commands, but defer completing the requested action if human or third-party review is required before the requested action can be completed. In such situations the server MUST return a 1001 response code to the client to note that the command has been received and processed, but the requested action is pending. The server MUST also manage the status of the object that is the subject of the command to reflect the initiation and completion of the requested action. Once the action has been completed, all clients involved in the transaction MUST be notified using a service message that the action has been completed and that the status of the object has changed.3.2.1. EPP The EPP - A - An OPTIONAL - An OPTIONAL servers) associated with the domain object to provide resolution services for the domain; see Section 1.1 for a description of the elements used to specify host objects or host attributes. A host object MUST be known to the server before the host object can be associated with a domain object. - An OPTIONAL identifier for the human or organizational social information (contact) object to be associated with the domain object as the object registrant. This object identifier MUST be known to the server before the contact object can be associated with the domain object. The EPP mapping for contact objects is described in [RFC4933]. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - Zero or more OPTIONAL - A information to be associated with the domain object. This mapping includes a password-based authentication mechanism, but the schema allows new mechanisms to be defined in new schemas. Example C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: When a - A - A Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - An OPTIONAL Example S: S: S: S: S: S: S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if a The EPP - A A domain object SHOULD NOT be deleted if subordinate host objects are associated with the domain object. For example, if domain \"example.com\" exists, and host object \"ns1.example.com\" also exists, then domain \"example.com\" SHOULD NOT be deleted until host \"ns1.example.com\" has been either deleted or renamed to exist in a different superordinate domain. A server SHOULD notify clients that object relationships exist by sending a 2305 error response code when Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 a with a domain object can be determined using the C: C: C: C: When a S: S: S: S: S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if a The EPP Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 contain a namespace. The - A - A - An OPTIONAL Example C: C: C: C: C: When a - A - An OPTIONAL Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Example S: S: S: S: S: S: S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if a The EPP - A - An OPTIONAL Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - A information associated with the domain object or authorization information associated with the domain object’s registrant or associated contacts. An OPTIONAL \"roid\" attribute MUST be used to identify the registrant or contact object if and only if the given authInfo is associated with a registrant or contact object, and not the domain object itself. Every EPP Transfer of a domain object MUST implicitly transfer all host objects that are subordinate to the domain object. For example, if domain object \"example.com\" is transferred and host object \"ns1.example.com\" exists, the host object MUST be transferred as part of the \"example.com\" transfer process. Host objects that are subject to transfer when transferring a domain object are listed in the response to an EPP C: C: C: C: C: When a Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Example S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if a The EPP - An OPTIONAL - An OPTIONAL Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 25] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - An OPTIONAL At least one - An OPTIONAL servers) associated with the domain object to provide resolution services for the domain; see Section 1.1 for a description of the elements used to specify host objects or host attributes. A host object MUST be known to the server before the host object can be associated with a domain object. If host attributes are used to specify name servers, note that IP address elements are not needed to identify a name server that is being removed. IP address elements can safely be absent or ignored in this situation. - Zero or more identifiers for contact objects to be associated with or removed from the domain object. Contact object identifiers MUST be known to the server before the contact object can be associated with the domain object. - Zero or more - A - A information associated with the domain object. This mapping includes a password-based authentication mechanism, but the schema allows new mechanisms to be defined in new schemas. A Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Example C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: When an Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 27] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Example S: S: S: S: S: An EPP error response MUST be returned if an 3.3. Offline Review of Requested Actions Commands are processed by a server in the order they are received from a client. Though an immediate response confirming receipt and processing of the command is produced by the server, a server operator MAY perform an offline review of requested transform commands before completing the requested action. In such situations, the response from the server MUST clearly note that the transform command has been received and processed, but the requested action is pending. The status of the corresponding object MUST clearly reflect processing of the pending action. The server MUST notify the client when offline processing of the action has been completed. Examples describing a Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 28] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 S: S: S: S: S: S: S: The status of the domain object after returning this response MUST include \"pendingCreate\". The server operator reviews the request offline, and informs the client of the outcome of the review either by queuing a service message for retrieval via the The service message MUST contain text in the - A - A Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 - A describing when review of the requested action was completed. Example \"review completed\" service message: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 30] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 20074. Formal Syntax An EPP object mapping is specified in XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation of the object mapping suitable for automated validation of EPP XML instances. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration purposes. BEGIN Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0 domain provisioning schema. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 31] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 32] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 33] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 minOccurs=\"0\"/> Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 36] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 37] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 38] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 minOccurs=\"0\"/> 5. Internationalization Considerations EPP is represented in XML, which provides native support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16 [RFC2781]. Though XML includes provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use of an \"encoding\" attribute in an declaration, use of UTF-8 is RECOMMENDED in environments where parser encoding support incompatibility exists. All date-time values presented via EPP MUST be expressed in Universal Coordinated Time using the Gregorian calendar. XML Schema allows use of time zone identifiers to indicate offsets from the zero meridian, but this option MUST NOT be used with EPP. The extended date-time form using upper case \"T\" and \"Z\" characters defined in [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] MUST be used to represent date-time values as XML Schema does not support truncated date-time forms or lower case \"T\" and \"Z\" characters. This document requires domain and host name syntax as specified in [RFC0952] as updated by [RFC1123]. At the time of this writing, RFC 3490 [RFC3490] describes a standard to use certain ASCII name labels to represent non-ASCII name labels. These conformance requirements might change as a result of progressing work in developing standards for internationalized domain names.6. IANA Considerations This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI assignments have been registered by the IANA. Registration request for the domain namespace: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 40] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 Registrant Contact: See the \"Author’s Address\" section of this document. XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. Registration request for the domain XML schema: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:domain-1.0 Registrant Contact: See the \"Author’s Address\" section of this document. XML: See the \"Formal Syntax\" section of this document.7. Security Considerations Authorization information as described in section 2.6 is REQUIRED to create a domain object. This information is used in some query and transfer operations as an additional means of determining client authorization to perform the command. Failure to protect authorization information from inadvertent disclosure can result in unauthorized transfer operations and unauthorized information release. Both client and server MUST ensure that authorization information is stored and exchanged with high-grade encryption mechanisms to provide privacy services. The object mapping described in this document does not provide any other security services or introduce any additional considerations beyond those described by [RFC4930] and protocol layers used by EPP.8. 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 suggestions that have been incorporated into this document were provided by Joe Abley, Chris Bason, Eric Brunner-Williams, Jordyn Buchanan, Dave Crocker, Ayesha Damaraju, Anthony Eden, Sheer El-Showk, Klaus Malorny, Dan Manley, Michael Mealling, Patrick Mevzek, Asbjorn Steira, Bruce Tonkin, and Rick Wesson. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 41] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 20079. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, \"DoD Internet host table specification\ [RFC1123] Braden, R., \"Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support\ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., \"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels\ [RFC3688] Mealling, M., \"The IETF XML Registry\ January 2004. [RFC4930] Hollenbeck, S., \"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)\ RFC 4930, May 2007. [RFC4932] Hollenbeck, S., \"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping\ [RFC4933] Hollenbeck, S., \"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping\ [W3C.REC-xml-20040204] Maler, E., Yergeau, F., Paoli, J., Bray, T., and C. Sperberg-McQueen, \"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third Edition)\ FirstEdition REC-xml-20040204, February 2004, [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] Thompson, H., Maloney, M., Mendelsohn, N., and D. Beech, \"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition\ Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028, October 2004, Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, \"XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition\ Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004, Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 42] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 20079.2. Informative References [RFC2781] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, \"UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 106\ [RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, \"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)\ RFC 3490, March 2003. [RFC3731] Hollenbeck, S., \"Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping\ Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 43] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007Appendix A. Changes from RFC 3731 1. Minor reformatting as a result of converting I-D source format from nroff to XML. 2. Removed this text from Section 2.3: \"With one exception, transform commands MUST be rejected when a pendingCreate, pendingDelete, pendingRenew, pendingTransfer, or pendingUpdate status is set. The only exception is that a 4. Changed text in Section 3.2.5 (old Section 3.2.1.4) from \"At least one 5. Renumbered old Section 3.2.6 to new Section 3.3. 6. Changed text in Section 3.3 (old Section 3.2.6) from this: \"The server operator reviews the request offline, and informs the client of the outcome of the review by queuing a service message for retrieval via the \"The server operator reviews the request offline, and informs the client of the outcome of the review either by queuing a service message for retrieval via the 7. Removed text describing use of the XML Schema schemaLocation attribute. This is an optional attribute that doesn’t need to be mandated for use in EPP. 8. Removed references to RFC 3339 and replaced them with references to the W3C XML Schema specification. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 44] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007 9. Updated EPP and XML references.Author’s Address Scott Hollenbeck VeriSign, Inc. 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166-6503 US EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.com Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 45] RFC 4931 EPP Domain Name Mapping May 2007Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an \"AS IS\" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Hollenbeck Standards Track [Page 46] 因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容
Copyright © 2019- azee.cn 版权所有 赣ICP备2024042794号-5
违法及侵权请联系：TEL:199 1889 7713 E-MAIL:2724546146@qq.com
本站由北京市万商天勤律师事务所王兴未律师提供法律服务