<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY RFC2026 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2026.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC3688 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3688.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC3735 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3735.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC3979 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3979.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC4879 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4879.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC5730 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5730.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC5890 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5890.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC7451 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7451.xml'>
  <!ENTITY RFC8126 PUBLIC ''
   'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml'>
]>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" submissionType="IETF" category="info" consensus="true"
obsoletes="7451" updates="" xml:lang="en" symRefs="true" sortRefs="false" tocInclude="true" version="3"
ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-01">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.28.1 -->
  <!-- Generated by id2xml 1.5.2 on 2025-05-13T13:55:41Z -->
	<front>
    <title abbrev="EPP Extension Registry">Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7451"/>
    <author initials="S." surname="Hollenbeck" fullname="Scott Hollenbeck">
      <organization>Verisign Labs</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>12061 Bluemont Way</street>
          <street>Reston, VA 20190</street>
          <street>United States of America</street>
        </postal>
        <email>shollenbeck@verisign.com</email>
        <uri>http://www.verisignlabs.com/</uri>
      </address>
    </author>
    <abstract>
      <t>
   The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) includes features to add
   functionality by extending the protocol.  It does not, however,
   describe how those extensions are managed.  This document describes a
   procedure for the registration and management of extensions to EPP,
   and it specifies a format for an IANA registry to record those
   extensions.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="sect-1" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
   Domain name registries implement a variety of operational and
   business models.  The differences in these models make it impossible
   to develop a "one size fits all" provisioning protocol; the
   Extensible Provisioning Protocol <xref target="RFC5730" format="default"/> was designed to focus on a
   minimal set of common functionality with built-in extension
   capabilities that allow new features to be specified on an "as needed" basis.  Guidelines for extending EPP are documented in RFC
   3735 <xref target="RFC3735" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t>
   RFCs 3735 and 5730 do not describe how extension development can be
   managed and coordinated.  This has led to a situation in which server
   operators can develop different extensions to address similar needs,
   such as the provisioning of Value Added Tax (VAT) information.
   Clients then need to support multiple extensions that serve similar
   purposes, and interoperability suffers as a result.</t>
      <t>
   An IANA registry can be used to help manage and coordinate the
   development of protocol extensions.  This document describes an IANA
   registry that will be used to coordinate the development of EPP
   extensions.</t>
      <t>This update was written to address a few issues that were identified with RFC 7451 <xref target="RFC7451" format="default"/> over time. The name of the mailing list used to review and discuss registration requests was changed from "eppext" to "regext" throughout the document. Text has been added to describe reviewer responsibility to confirm correctness of URIs used in extension registration requests. "Other" has been added to the set of document status values for the registry to avoid confusion with "Informational" RFCs. <xref target="sect-2.2.3" format="default"/> has been updated to note that registry entries can be removed with IESG approval. <xref target="sect-2.2.2" format="default"/> has been updated by changing "&lt;registrant name&gt;, &lt;email address&gt;" to "&lt;name&gt;, &lt;address&gt;" to meet right margin constraints.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-2" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Extension Specification and Registration Procedure</name>
      <t>
   This section describes the format of an IANA registry and the
   procedures used to populate and manage registry entries.</t>
      <section anchor="sect-2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Extension Specification</name>
        <t>
   This registry uses the "Specification Required" policy described in
   RFC 8126 <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.  An English language version of the extension
   specification will be referenced from the registry, though non-
   English versions of the specification may also be provided.  Note
   that Section 2.1 of RFC 3735 <xref target="RFC3735" format="default"/> provides specific guidelines
   for documenting EPP extensions.</t>
        <t>
   Note that the "Specification Required" policy requires review by a
   "designated expert".  Section 5 of RFC 8126 <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/> describes the
   role of designated experts and the function they perform. This policy also requires "a permanent and
   readily available public specification". RFC documents meet that requirement. Proprietary specifications
   may meet that requirement, depending on how they are archived and accessible. Internet-Draft documents
   do not meet that requirement. RFC 2026 <xref target="RFC2026" format="default"/> notes that
   "Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time".</t>
        <section anchor="sect-2.1.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Designated Expert Evaluation Criteria</name>
          <t>
   A high-level description of the role of the designated expert is
   described in Section 5.2 of RFC 8126 <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.  Specific guidelines
   for the appointment of designated experts and the evaluation of EPP
   extensions are provided here.</t>
          <t>
   The IESG should appoint a small pool of individuals (perhaps 3 - 5)
   to serve as designated experts, as described in Section 5.2 of RFC
   8126 <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.  The pool should have a single administrative chair
   who is appointed by the IESG.  The designated experts should use the
   existing regext mailing list (regext@ietf.org) or its successor for public discussion
   of registration requests.</t>
          <t>
   Extensions should be evaluated for architectural soundness using the guidelines
   described in RFC 3735 <xref target="RFC3735" format="default"/>, including the
   Security Considerations section of that document.  Expert evaluation should
   explicitly include consideration of the privacy consequences of proposed extensions,
   and, at a minimum, ensure that any privacy considerations are fully documented in
   the relevant specification(s). URIs proposed in extensions (XML namespace and
   schema registration requests are commonly found in EPP extensions) should be evaluated
   for both syntactic and semantic correctness. XML schema and namespace URIs must be
   registered in the IETF XML Registry using the procedures described in RFC 3688
   <xref target="RFC3688" format="default"/>. IETF namespaces must be reserved for IETF
   specifications. Non-IETF namespaces must be used for non-IETF specifications;
   the designated experts may need to work with a registrant to identify URIs that can
   be added to the IETF XML Registry. Extensions and any normative reference necessary
   to implement the extension must not be denoted with "work in-progress" or any similar
   description.</t>
          <t>
   The results of the evaluation should be shared via email with the
   registrant and the regext mailing list.  Issues discovered during the
   evaluation can be corrected by the registrant, and those corrections
   can be submitted to the designated experts until the designated
   experts explicitly decide to accept or reject the registration
   request.  The designated experts must make an explicit decision and
   that decision must be shared via email with the registrant and the
   regext mailing list.  If the specification for an extension is an
   IETF Standards Track document, no review is required by the
   designated expert.</t>
          <t>
   Designated experts should be permissive in their evaluation of
   requests to register extensions that have been implemented and
   deployed by at least one registry/registrar pair.  This implies that
   it may indeed be possible to register multiple extensions that
   provide the same functionality.  Requests to register extensions that
   have not been deployed should be evaluated with a goal of reducing
   functional duplication.  A potential registrant who submits a request
   to register a new, un-deployed extension that includes similar
   functionality to an existing, registered extension should be made
   aware of the existing extension.  The registrant should be asked to
   reconsider their request given the existence of a similar extension.
   Should they decline to do so, perceived similarity should not be a
   sufficient reason for rejection as long as all other requirements are
   met.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Registration Procedure</name>
        <t>
   The registry contains information describing each registered
   extension.  Registry entries are created and managed by sending forms
   to IANA that describe the extension and the operation to be performed
   on the registry entry.</t>
        <section anchor="sect-2.2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Required Information</name>
          <t>
   Name of Extension: A case-insensitive, ASCII text string that
   contains the name of the extension specification.  Non-ASCII
   representations of the extension name can be included in the "Notes"
   described below.</t>
          <t>
   Document Status: The document status of the specification document. For
   RFC documents, the possible set of values includes "Standards Track",
   "Informational", "Experimental", "Historic", and "BCP" as described in
   Sections 4 and 5 of RFC  2026 <xref target="RFC2026" format="default"/>.
   For documents that are not RFCs, this will always be "Other".</t>
          <t>
   Reference: A permanent, publicly available reference to the specification of
   this extension.  This could be an RFC number or some other pointer to
   the document defining the extension that meets the "Specification Required"
   registry policy.</t>
          <t>
   Registrant Name and Email Address: The name and email address of the
   person that is responsible for managing the registry entry.  If the
   registration is of an IETF Standards Track extension, this can simply
   be listed as "IESG, &lt;iesg@ietf.org&gt;".</t>
          <t>
   TLDs: A text string containing the top-level domain name (or domain
   names), including the preceding ".", for which the extension has been
   specified (e.g., ".org").  If there are multiple TLDs, they are given
   as a list of domain names separated by commas, (e.g. ".com", ".net").
   Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) TLDs should be specified in
   A-label <xref target="RFC5890" format="default"/> format.  If the extension is not associated with a
   specific top-level domain, the case-insensitive text string "Any" can
   be used to indicate that.</t>
          <t>
   IPR Disclosure: A pointer to any Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
   disclosure document(s) related to this extension, or "None" may be
   used if there are no such disclosures.  This can be an IPR disclosure
   filed with the IETF in accordance with RFC 3979 <xref target="RFC3979" format="default"/> as updated
   by RFC 4879 <xref target="RFC4879" format="default"/> if the extension is part of an IETF
   Contribution, or it can be other IPR disclosure documents identifying
   the claimed intellectual property rights and terms of use for
   extensions that are not part of an IETF Contribution.</t>
          <t>
   Status: Either "Active" or "Inactive".  The "Active" status is used
   for extensions that are currently implemented and in use.  The
   "Inactive" status is used for extensions that are not implemented or
   are otherwise not being used.</t>
          <t>
   Notes: Either "None" or other text that describes optional notes to
   be included with the registered extension.  If the Status value is
   "Inactive", text should be included to describe how and when this
   state was reached.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-2.2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Registration Form</name>
          <t>
   The required information must be formatted consistently using the
   following registration form.  Form field names and values may appear
   on the same line.</t>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 -----BEGIN FORM-----
 Name of Extension: <text string> (quotes are optional)

 Document Status: <document status>

 Reference: <RFC number, URL, etc.>

 Registrant Name and Email Address: <name>, <address>

 TLDs: "Any"|<one or more TLD text strings separated by commas>

 IPR Disclosure: "None"|<URL>

 Status: "Active"|"Inactive"

 Notes: "None"|<optional text>
 -----END FORM-----

Example form with RFC specification:

 -----BEGIN FORM-----
 Name of Extension:
 "An Extension RFC for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"

 Document Status:  Standards Track

 Reference:  RFC XXXX

 Registrant Name and Email Address:  IESG, <iesg@ietf.org>

 TLDs: Any

 IPR Disclosure: None

 Status: Active

 Notes: None
 -----END FORM-----

Example form with non-RFC specification:

 -----BEGIN FORM-----
 Name of Extension:
 "An Example Extension for the .example Top-Level Domain"

 Document Status: Other

 Reference:
 http://www.example.com/html/example-epp-ext.txt

 Registrant Name and Email Address: John Doe, jdoe@example.com
 
 TLDs: .example
 
 IPR Disclosure:
 http://www.example.com/ipr/example-epp-ext-ipr.html

 Status: Active

 Notes: None
 -----END FORM-----
]]></artwork>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-2.2.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Registration Processing</name>
          <t>
   Registrants should send each registration form to IANA with a single
   record for incorporation into the registry.  Send the form via email
   to &lt;iana@iana.org&gt; or complete the online form found on the IANA web
   site.  The subject line should indicate whether the enclosed form
   represents an insertion of a new record (indicated by the word
   "INSERT" in the subject line), replacement of an existing record
   (indicated by the word "MODIFY" in the subject line), deactivation of
   an existing record (indicated by the word "DEACTIVATE" in the subject line),
   or removal of an existing record (indicated by the word "REMOVE" in the subject line).
   Records in this registry may only be removed or deactivated with IESG Approval
   (see <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>).  On receipt of a
   registration request, IANA will initiate review by the designated
   expert(s), who will evaluate the request using the criteria in
   <xref target="sect-2.1.1" format="default"/> in consultation with the current
   working group mailing list focused on the development of EPP extensions.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-2.2.4" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Updating Registry Entries</name>
          <t>
   When submitting changes to existing registry entries, include text in
   the "Notes" field of the registration form describing the change.
   Under normal circumstances, registry entries are only to be updated
   by the registrant.  If the registrant becomes unavailable or
   otherwise unresponsive, the designated expert can submit a
   registration form to IANA to update the registrant information.
   Entries can change state from "Active" to "Inactive" and back again
   as long as state-change requests conform to the processing
   requirements identified in this document.  In addition to entries
   that become "Inactive" due to a lack of implementation, entries for
   which a specification becomes consistently unavailable over time
   should be marked "Inactive" by the designated expert until the
   specification again becomes reliably available.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-3" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>
   IANA has created the "Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" registry to manage EPP extensions.  This registry has
   its own heading on IANA's protocol listings.  The information to be
   registered and the procedures to be followed in populating the
   registry are described in <xref target="sect-2" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t>Name of registry: Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)</t>
      <ul empty="true" spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <dl newline="true" spacing="normal" indent="2">
            <dt>Section at http://www.iana.org/protocols:</dt>
            <dd>
              <dl newline="true" spacing="compact" indent="2">			    
                <dt>Registry Title:</dt><dd>Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)</dd>
                <dt>Registry Name:</dt><dd>Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)</dd>
                <dt>Registration Procedure:</dt><dd>Specification Required</dd>
                <dt>Reference:</dt><dd>This document</dd>
				<dt>Required information:</dt><dd>See <xref target="sect-2.2.1" format="default"/></dd>
				<dt>Review process:</dt><dd>"Specification Required" as described in RFC 8126 <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/></dd>
				<dt>Size, format, and syntax of registry entries:</dt><dd>See <xref target="sect-2.2.1" format="default"/></dd>
				<dt>Initial assignments and reservations:</dt><dd>Preserved from the existing registry. Please change all non-RFC entries in the registry that have document status "Informational" to document status "Other".</dd>
              </dl>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>In addition, the form used to populate and manage the registry has been added to the table of Protocol Registration Forms maintained by IANA. IANA is further requested to forward all designated expert review requests to both the designated expert and the "regext" mailing list or its successor.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-4" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>
   This document introduces no new security considerations to EPP.
   However, extensions should be evaluated according to the Security
   Considerations of RFC 3735 <xref target="RFC3735" format="default"/>.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
		&RFC2026;
		&RFC3688;
		&RFC3979;
		&RFC4879;
		&RFC5730;
		&RFC5890;
        &RFC7451;
		&RFC8126;
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>		
		&RFC3735;
      </references>
    </references>
    <section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgements" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>The information described in the registry is based on a suggestion posted to the provreg mailing list by Jay Daley in August 2013. The need to update RFC 7451 was first proposed by Gavin Brown. Additional feedback for the update was provided by the following people: James Galvin, James Gould, Pawel Kowalik, Andrew Newton.</t>
    </section>
	
    <section numbered="false" anchor="changeLog" toc="default" removeInRFC="true">
      <name>Change Log</name>
      <dl>
        <dt>-00:</dt><dd>Initial WG version.</dd>
        <dt>-01:</dt><dd>WG last call edits: added reference to RFC 2026 to clarify the status of Internet-Draft documents as extension specifications. "IESG approval" -> "IESG Approval" in <xref target="sect-2.2.3" format="default"/>. Added DEACTIVATE and REMOVE request processing to <xref target="sect-2.2.3" format="default"/>. Clarified use of IETF namespaces and "work in progress" specifications in <xref target="sect-2.2.1" format="default"/>. Clarified status values in <xref target="sect-2.2.1" format="default"/>. Updated acknowledgements.</dd>
      </dl>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
