idnits 2.17.1 draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-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 2 instances 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 (December 3, 2018) is 1970 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: June 2, 2019 December 3, 2018 6 Registry Unavailable Domain Name Report 7 draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report-00 9 Abstract 11 This document describes the content of an unavailable domain name 12 report based on the registry report structure and delivered by the 13 registry reporting 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 June 2, 2019. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2018 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. Internationalized Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2.2. Dates and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 2.3. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3. Report Headings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4.1. Single TLD File Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4.2. Multiple TLDs File Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 1. Introduction 69 Modern top-level domain registries provide a number of detailed 70 reports and documents that their registrars require on a daily, 71 weekly and monthly basis. These most commonly include transaction 72 reports, as well as lists containing currently unavailable domains 73 and current premium domains. These reports are critical for 74 registrars' businesses and play an important role in accounting and 75 operations processes as well as in sales and marketing activities. 76 In the current set-up registrars must download these reports from 77 each registry's intranet in a different manner according to each 78 registry's own document management set up. 80 This document describes the content of an unavailable domain name 81 report based on the [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure] 82 and delivered by the [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo]. 84 2. Terminology and Definitions 86 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 87 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 88 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when 89 specified in their uppercase forms. 91 2.1. Internationalized Domain Names 93 MUST be as defined in 94 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure]. 96 2.2. Dates and Times 98 MUST be as defined in 99 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure]. 101 2.3. Character Encoding 103 MUST be as defined in 104 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure]. 106 3. Report Headings 108 The first row MUST be the column headings in the following order: 110 TLD It MUST contain the top-level domain name and 111 formatted according to section 2.1 of this 112 document. 114 DOMAIN It MUST contain the domain name formatted according 115 to section 2.1 of this document. 117 STATUS It MUST contain the status of the domain name. It 118 MUST either be 'REGISTRY REGISTERED', 'REGISTERED', 119 'REGISTRY RESERVED' or 'POLICY RESERVED'. 121 4. Examples 123 4.1. Single TLD File Example 125 This is an example of a domain fee report for a single top-level 126 domain .example with non-standard fees. 128 Filename: example_unavailable-domains_2018-11-01.csv.gz 130 TLD,DOMAIN,STATUS 131 example,test1.example,REGISTRY RESERVED 132 example,test2.example,POLICY RESERVED 133 example,test3.example,REGISTERED 134 example,xn--4gqvdy3r.example,REGISTERED 136 4.2. Multiple TLDs File Example 138 This is an example of a domain fee report for multiple top-level 139 domains from example registry with non-standard fees. 141 Filename: example-registry_unavailable-domains_2018-11.csv.gz 143 TLD,DOMAIN,STATUS 144 example1,test1.example1,REGISTRY RESERVED 145 example2,test1.example2,POLICY RESERVED 146 example3,test2.example3,REGISTERED 147 xn--zckzah,xn--r8jz45g.xn--zckzah,POLICY RESERVED 149 5. IANA Considerations 151 This document has no IANA actions. 153 6. Security Considerations 155 The registry unavailable domain report described in this document 156 does not provide any security services. 158 7. Implementation Status 160 Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 161 [RFC7942] before publication. 163 This section records the status of known implementations of the 164 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 165 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. 166 The description of implementations in this section is intended to 167 assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to 168 RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation 169 here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort 170 has been spent to verify the information presented here that was 171 supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not 172 be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their 173 features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may 174 exist. 176 According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups 177 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 178 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 179 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It 180 is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 181 they see fit". 183 Add implementation details once available. 185 8. References 187 8.1. Normative References 189 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure] 190 McPherson, N. and Sattler, T., "Registry Report Strucutre" 191 , (work in 193 progress), November 2018 195 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 196 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, 197 . 199 8.2. Informative References 201 [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo] 202 McPherson, N. and Sattler, T., "Registry Reporting 203 Repository", (work in 205 progress), November 2018 207 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and Farrel, A., "Improving Awareness of 208 Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 209 7942, July 2016, 210 . 212 Appendix A. Change History 214 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 216 The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback 217 and suggestions (sorted alphabetically by company): 219 o Neal McPherson, 1&1 IONOS 220 o James Galvin, Afilias 221 o Roger Carney, GoDaddy 223 Author's Address 225 Tobias Sattler 227 Email: tobias.sattler@me.com 228 URI: https://tobiassattler.com