idnits 2.17.1 draft-wisser-registrylock-04.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 is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 13 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5731], [RFC5732], [RFC5733]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: Current EPP authorizations schemes are not secure enough to allow in-band authorization. Registries and registrars therefore MUST not implent in-band command authorization. -- The document date (7 July 2021) is 1023 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7451 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Registration Protocols Extensions U. Wisser 3 Internet-Draft The Swedish Internet Foundation 4 Intended status: Standards Track 7 July 2021 5 Expires: 8 January 2022 7 Registry Lock Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 8 draft-wisser-registrylock-04 10 Abstract 12 This extensions defines an additional protective layer for changes to 13 domain [RFC5731], host [RFC5732] and contact [RFC5733] objects 14 managed through EPP. 16 EPP allows changes to objects only by the sponsoring client. EPP 17 objects are usually managed by the sponsoring client on behalf of the 18 sponsoring clients customers. All of these interactions are ususally 19 fully automated. 21 In case of a system breach, there is no protection in EPP to changes 22 to any object by the intruder. 24 This extension defines a protective layer that aims to break 25 automated changes and work flows by requiring manual intervention. 27 The actual form of manual intervention is out-of-scope for this 28 document. By whom and how changes can be made is up to the registry 29 and registrars to decide. 31 Status of This Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 January 2022. 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 55 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 56 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 57 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 58 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 59 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 60 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2. Object Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 2.1. Out-of-band Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2.2. In-band Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2.3. Command Execution Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 2.4. Temporary Unlock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 3. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 3.1. Locking Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 4. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 4.1. EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 4.1.1. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 4.1.2. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 4.1.3. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 4.2. EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 4.2.1. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 4.2.2. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 4.2.3. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 82 4.2.4. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 4.2.5. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 84 5. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 5.1. Registry Lock Extension Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 86 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 6.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 88 6.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 89 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 90 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 91 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 92 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 93 Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 94 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 95 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 96 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 97 A.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 98 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 100 1. Introduction 102 This extensions defines an additional protective layer for changes to 103 domain [RFC5731], host [RFC5732] and contact [RFC5733] objects 104 managed through EPP. 106 EPP allows changes to objects only by the sponsoring client. EPP 107 objects are usually managed by the sponsoring client on behalf of the 108 sponsoring clients customers. All of these interactions are ususally 109 fully automated. 111 In case of a system breach, there is no protection in EPP to changes 112 to any object by the intruder. 114 This extension defines a protective layer that aims to break 115 automated changes and work flows by requiring manual intervention. 117 The actual form of manual intervention is out-of-scope for this 118 document. By whom and how changes can be made is up to the registry 119 and registrars to decide. 121 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 123 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 124 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 125 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 127 XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications 128 and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the 129 character case presented in order to develop a conforming 130 implementation. 132 In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:" 133 represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and 134 white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element 135 relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol. 137 "regLock" is used as an abbreviation for 138 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0". The XML namespace 139 prefix "reglock" is used, but implementations MUST NOT depend on it 140 and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer 141 to interpret and output the XML documents. 143 2. Object Protection 145 This extension provides additional protection to objects managed by a 146 sponsoring client on behalf of a registrant. This is achieved by 147 requiring additional authorization for transform commands. 149 Solutions can be broadly categorized as in-band or out-of-band 150 authorizations. Where in-band authorizations would provide 151 authorization through EPP. Whereas out-of-band solutions provide 152 authorization by some other means. 154 * either by temporarily unlocking the object for changes 155 * or by authorizing pending changes after they have been submitted 156 to the server 158 2.1. Out-of-band Authorization 160 Out-of-band Authorization is not covered in this document. By 161 definition out-of-band authorization will not use EPP and therefore 162 is not subject of consideration here. 164 Registries must provide means for the registrar or registrant to 165 temporarily unlock the domain, to remove registry lock or ro 166 authorize changes submitted to the server through some means than 167 EPP. 169 2.2. In-band Authorization 171 Currently defined authorization schemes are not deemed secure enough 172 for in-band change authorization. Therefore this document does not 173 allow in-band authorization. This is left as a future development 174 once secure enough authorization schemes have been defined. 176 The current defined authorization scheme is based on static 177 passwords. This would mean that once a password is known any change 178 can be made. Security here is once again dependend on the security 179 of all automatic systems invloved. 181 2.3. Command Execution Restrictions 183 Once an object has Registry Lock enabled all transform commands 184 except MUST only be executed if a proper authorization has 185 been made. 187 Otherwise the command MUST be rejected with EPP result code 2201 188 "Authorization error" or 1001 "Command completed successfully; action 189 pending" [RFC5730] section 3 in depending on the chosen out-of-band 190 authorization. 192 if the server has returned a 1001 "Command completed successfully; 193 action pending" answer, it MUST follow [RFC5731], [RFC5732], 194 [RFC5733] in handling succeeded or failed commands. 196 The following EPP flags must be set. 198 * serverDeleteProhibited 199 * serverTransferProhibited 200 * serverUpdateProhibited 202 If the object is unlocked the flags SHOULD be cleared and the server 203 should answer to an request with the according information. 205 OPEN QUESTION: If a domain is under registry lock, can a subordinate 206 host be updated? 208 * I got one "no" answer - hosts might not be owned by domain owner 209 * In .se/.nu all subordinary hosts are automatically owned by the 210 domain owner and locked if the domain is locked. 212 We need more input! 214 If the object is temporarily unlocked only commands are 215 allowed. and are explicitly not allowed. For 216 the time of the temporary unlock the serverUpdateProhibited status 217 should be cleared. 219 2.4. Temporary Unlock 221 While an object is locked some situations could require a change. To 222 fully unlock the object would remove all protection and could not 223 provide any guarantee that the object is protected again after the 224 desired changes have been made. 226 Temporarily unlocking the object allows for a more fine grained 227 security model for all objects. 229 Any temporary unlocking of the object has to be time limited. After 230 that time has passed no further changes are possible. 232 Additionally the number of allowed EPP commands can be specified to 233 further limit the changes possible. 235 Registries and registrars can further limit the possibles changes, 236 e.g. not allowing owner changes even for temporarily unlocked Domain 237 objects. 239 IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH A GOOD IDEA? INPUT NEEDED!!! 240 When an object is temporarily unlocked the serverUpdateProhibited 241 SHOULD be cleared while changes are possible. 243 When either the time for the temporary unlock has passed or the 244 maximum amount of EPP changes has been made the object MUST return to 245 a fully locked status. The serverUpdateProhibited flag MUST be set 246 again and the infData response MUST no longer contain a 247 element. 249 3. Object Attributes 251 3.1. Locking Status 253 Locking Status information indicates if the additional protection of 254 Registry Lock is enabled for an object. 256 Boolean values MUST be represented in the XML Schema format described 257 in Part 2 of the W3C XML Schema recommendation 258 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]. 260 4. EPP Command Mapping 262 A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found 263 in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730]. 265 4.1. EPP Query Commands 267 4.1.1. EPP Command 269 This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command 270 or response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731], 271 [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. 273 4.1.2. EPP Command 275 This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command 276 described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731], host mapping [RFC5732] 277 or contact mapping [RFC5733] However, additional elements are defined 278 for the response. 280 When an command has been processed successfully, the EPP 281 element MUST contain child elements as described in the EPP 282 object mappings. 284 In addition, the EPP element SHOULD contain a child 285 element that identifies the extension namespace the 286 epp client has indicated support for the extension in the 287 command. 289 The element contains the following child elements: 291 * Exactly one element that indicates if Registry Lock is 292 enabled for the object. 293 * An OPTIONAL element if the object currently can be 294 changed by the sponsoring client. The field indicates the time 295 stamp when the lock will become active again. 296 * An OPTIONAL attribute that indicates the number of 297 EPP commands that will be executed. 299 Example Response, domain not locked 301 S: 302 S: 304 S: 305 S: 306 S: Command completed successfully 307 S: 308 S: 309 S: 312 S: 313 S: 314 S: 316 S: 0 317 S: 318 S: 319 S: 320 S: ABC-12345 321 S: 54322-XYZ 322 S: 323 S: 324 S: 326 Example Response, domain locked 328 S: 329 S: 331 S: 332 S: 333 S: Command completed successfully 334 S: 335 S: 336 S: 339 S: 340 S: 341 S: 343 S: 1 344 S: 345 S: 346 S: 347 S: ABC-12345 348 S: 54322-XYZ 349 S: 350 S: 351 S: 353 Example Response, domain temporary unlocked 355 S: 356 S: 358 S: 359 S: 360 S: Command completed successfully 361 S: 362 S: 363 S: 366 S: 367 S: 368 S: 370 S: 1 371 S:20000101T000000+0000 372 S: 373 S: 374 S: 375 S: 376 S: ABC-12345 377 S: 54322-XYZ 378 S: 379 S: 380 S: 382 4.1.3. EPP Command 384 This extension does not add any elements to the EPP 385 command or response described in the EPP mapping 386 [RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. 388 4.2. EPP Transform Commands 390 4.2.1. EPP Command 392 This extension is intended to be used within the scope of the object 393 creation. It does not define a command of its own. 395 This extension adds elements to the EPP command as described 396 in the EPP [RFC5730]. 398 When submitting a command to the server, the client MAY 399 include in the element a element to 400 create the domain in a locked state. The extension includes the 401 following element: 403 * A element indicating that the domain MUST be 404 created in a locked state. 406 When a command has been processed successfully, the EPP 407 response is as described in the EPP objects mappings [RFC5731], 408 [RFC5732], [RFC5733]. 410 Example command 412 C: 413 C: 414 C: 415 C: 416 C: 418 C: ns1.example.com 419 C: 192.0.2.2 420 C: 192.0.2.29 421 C: 1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A 422 C: 423 C: 424 C: 425 C: 427 C: 428 C: ABC-12345 429 C: 430 C: 432 4.2.2. EPP Command 434 This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command 435 or response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731], 436 [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. 438 If the object is locked, the EPP command MUST be rejected 439 with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 440 3. See Section 2.3 442 4.2.3. EPP Command 444 This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command 445 or response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731], 446 [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. 448 Execution of the EPP command is not restricted by this 449 extension. 451 4.2.4. EPP Command 453 This extension does not add any elements to the EPP 454 command or response described in the EPP mappings 455 [RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. 457 If the object is locked, the EPP command MUST be rejected 458 with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 459 3. See Section 2.3 461 4.2.5. EPP Command 463 This extension adds elements to the EPP command as described 464 in [RFC5730]. 466 If the object is not locked, the command can be used to lock 467 the object, similarly to the command. 469 If the object is in locked state, but temporarily unlocked, the 470 server MUST execute the command as if the object were unlocked. 472 If the object is locked the server can handle commands in 473 two ways 475 * answering the command with EPP response code 1001 "Command 476 completed successfully; action pending" [RFC5730] section 3 477 * rejecting with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" 478 [RFC5730] section 3 480 Registries can narrow down allowed changes when a domain is locked. 481 Registries could prohobit changes of registrant for doamins even if 482 the domain is temporatily unlocked or password authorization is 483 given. 485 When a command has been processed successfully, the EPP 486 response is as described in the EPP objects mappings [RFC5731], 487 [RFC5732], [RFC5733]. 489 Example command, locking domain 491 C: 492 C: 493 C: 494 C: 495 C: 497 C: example.com 498 C: 499 C: 500 C: 501 C: 503 C: 504 C: ABC-12345 505 C: 506 C: 508 5. Formal Syntax 510 One schema is presented here that is the EPP Registry Lock Extension 511 schema. 513 The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation 514 of the object mapping suitable for automated validation of EPP XML 515 instances. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they 516 are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI 517 registration purposes. 519 5.1. Registry Lock Extension Schema 520 BEGIN 521 522 528 529 530 Registry Lock Extension to the 531 Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0 532 533 535 537 539 541 543 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 556 557 END 559 6. IANA Considerations 561 6.1. XML Namespace 563 This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas 564 conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The 565 following URI assignment is requested of IANA: 567 Registration request for the registryLock namespace: 569 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0 570 Registrant Contact: IESG 571 XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. 573 Registration request for the registryLock XML schema: 575 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:epp:registryLock-1.0 576 Registrant Contact: IESG 577 XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document. 579 6.2. EPP Extension Registry 581 The EPP extension described in this document should be registered by 582 the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in [RFC7451]. The 583 details of the registration are as follows: 585 Name of Extension: "Registry Lock Extension for the Extensible 586 Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" 588 Document status: Standards Track 590 Reference: (insert reference to RFC version of this document) 592 Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, 594 TLDs: Any 596 IPR Disclosure: None 598 Status: Active 600 Notes: None 602 7. Implementation Status 604 Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 605 RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. 607 Implemented by .SE since 2019. 609 8. Security Considerations 611 The security properties of EPP from [RFC5730] are preserved. 613 This extensions introduces an additional security layer for changes 614 of objects managed through EPP. The overall security of these 615 measures depends on the security of the out-of-band authorization. 616 Registries and registrars are therefore adviced to select secure 617 forms of authorization. 619 Current EPP authorizations schemes are not secure enough to allow in- 620 band authorization. Registries and registrars therefore MUST not 621 implent in-band command authorization. 623 9. Acknowledgements 625 The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback 626 and suggestions: 628 10. Normative References 630 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 631 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 632 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 633 . 635 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 636 DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, 637 . 639 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", 640 STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, 641 . 643 [RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 644 Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, 645 DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009, 646 . 648 [RFC5732] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 649 Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732, 650 August 2009, . 652 [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 653 Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, 654 August 2009, . 656 [RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible 657 Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451, 658 February 2015, . 660 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 661 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 662 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 663 . 665 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] 666 Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes 667 Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation 668 REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, 28 October 2004, 669 . 671 Appendix A. Change History 673 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 675 1. Corrected information for the command. 676 2. Minor fixes in wording. 677 3. Introduces resData element. 679 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 681 1. Multiple spelling errors fixed. 682 2. Moved response from resData to extension part of the EPP 683 response. 684 3. Clarification of password and out-of-band usage. 685 4. Updated XML schema and examples 686 5. Changed security considerations for password authorization. 687 6. Added unlockUntil to create command 688 7. Forbid temporarily unlock for password authorization. 690 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 692 1. Fix list styles for better readability 693 2. Fix reference to W3C XML Schema 695 A.4. Change from 03 to 04 697 1. Remove references to in-band authorization 698 2. Remove special response elements 699 3. Add command counter to temporary unlock 700 4. Fix formatting and XML schema 702 Author's Address 703 Ulrich Wisser 704 The Swedish Internet Foundation 705 Box 92073 706 SE-12007 Stockholm 707 Sweden 709 Email: ulrich@wisser.se 710 URI: https://www.internetstiftelsen.se