idnits 2.17.1 draft-sattler-contact-inventory-report-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 29, 2019) is 1914 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet Engineering Task Force T. Sattler, Editor 2 Internet-Draft 3 Intended status: Best Current Practice 4 Expires: July 28, 2019 January 29, 2019 6 Contact Inventory Report 7 draft-sattler-contact-inventory-report-00 9 Abstract 11 This document describes the content of a Contact Inventory Report 12 based on the Report Structure and delivered by the Reporting 13 Repository. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2019. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 49 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2.1. Dates and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 3. Report Headings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 4. Unique ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 1. Introduction 66 Modern top-level domain registries provide a number of detailed 67 reports and documents that their registrars require on a daily, 68 weekly and monthly basis. These most commonly include transaction 69 reports, as well as lists containing currently unavailable domains 70 and current premium domain fees. These reports are critical for 71 registrars' businesses and play an important role in accounting and 72 operations processes as well as in sales and marketing activities. 73 In the current set-up registrars must download these reports from 74 each registry's intranet in a different manner according to each 75 registry's own document management set up. 77 A contact inventory comparison between the contacts that are on an 78 accreditation / account and the contacts that a registrar / reseller 79 has in its system is therefore useful. 81 This document describes the content of a Contact Inventory Report 82 based on the [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-report-structure] and delivered 83 by the [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-reporting-repository]. 85 2. Terminology and Definitions 87 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 88 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 89 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when 90 specified in their uppercase forms. 92 2.1. Dates and Times 94 MUST be as defined in 95 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-report-structure]. 97 3. Report Headings 99 The first row MUST be the column headings in the following order: 101 CONTACTID It MUST contain the server-unique identifier of 102 of the contact-object. 104 UPDATED It MUST contain the date and time of the most 105 recent contact-object modification. If the contact 106 object has never been modified, then the date and 107 time of contact-object creation has to be used. 108 Formatting in both cases according to section 2.1 109 of this document. 111 INUSE It MUST either be 0 if the contact-object is not 112 linked to a domain-object or 1 if it is linked. 114 ID It MUST contain an unique ID according to section 4 115 of this document. 117 4. Unique ID 119 A unique ID MUST either be according the IANA registrar IDs 120 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml) 121 where applicable or another unique registrar or reseller ID MUST be 122 used. 124 5. Example 126 This is an example of a contact inventory report. 128 Filename: contact-inventory_2019-01-01.csv.gz 130 CONTACTID,UPDATED,INUSE,ID 131 sh8013,2018-12-30T07:00:00Z,0,1 132 sh8014,2018-12-30T09:00:15Z,1,1 133 sh8015,2018-12-31T09:03:22Z,1,1 134 sh8016,2018-12-31T10:18:56Z,0,1 136 6. IANA Considerations 138 This document has no IANA actions. 140 7. Security Considerations 142 The contact inventory report described in this document does not 143 provide any security services. 145 8. Implementation Status 147 Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 148 [RFC7942] before publication. 150 This section records the status of known implementations of the 151 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 152 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. 153 The description of implementations in this section is intended to 154 assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to 155 RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation 156 here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort 157 has been spent to verify the information presented here that was 158 supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not 159 be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their 160 features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may 161 exist. 163 According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups 164 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 165 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 166 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It 167 is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 168 they see fit". 170 Add implementation details once available. 172 9. References 174 9.1. Normative References 176 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-report-structure] 177 McPherson, N. and Sattler, T., "Report Strucutre", 178 (work in progress), January 2019 181 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 182 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, 183 . 185 9.2. Informative References 187 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-reporting-repository] 188 McPherson, N. and Sattler, T., "Reporting Repository", 189 (work in progress), January 2019 192 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and Farrel, A., "Improving Awareness of 193 Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 194 7942, July 2016, 195 . 197 Appendix A. Change History 199 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 201 The author wishes to thank the following persons for their feedback 202 and suggestions (sorted alphabetically by company): 204 Author's Address 206 Tobias Sattler 208 Email: tobias.sattler@me.com 209 URI: https://tobiassattler.com