Subject: [regext] Signaling BCP support in EPP for draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer and draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:28:15 +0000

One question that was raised by Patrick Mevzek on the mailing list was associated with signaling the implementation of a BCP by the server that I believe would also apply to the client.  This question applies to the two REGEXT BCP drafts draft-ietf-regext-secure-authinfo-transfer and draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces.  The only existing signaling mechanism in EPP is the use of the greeting and login services.  A namespace URI could be assigned for each BCP draft that is included as an <objURI> or an <extURI> in the greeting to inform the client of the support of the BCP by the server, and in the login command to inform the server of the support of the BCP by the client.  Between the two options, I prefer the use of the <extURI>.  The questions for the working group include:

  1.  Is signaling needed in EPP for the implementation of BCPs?
  2.  If signaling is needed:
     *   Will the existing signaling mechanism in EPP with the greeting and login services meet the purpose?
     *   Of the two service URIs <objURI> and <extURI>, which is the preferred URI to use?
     *   What URI scheme should be used?

                                                  i.      One proposal is to include bcp in the namespace, such as “urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:secure-authinfo-transfer-<version>” and “urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:bcp:unhandled-namespaces-<version>”.  The <version> would be updated based on material updates to the BCP draft and bumped to 1.0 after WGLC.

Please reply to the list with your feedback.

Thanks,
--

JG

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email-masked]<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email-masked]>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>