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