Internet DRAFT - draft-brunner-epp-data-considerations
draft-brunner-epp-data-considerations
Individual Contribution E. Brunner-Williams
Internet-Draft Wampumpeag
Expires: April 28, 2003 October 28, 2002
EPP Data Considerations
<draft-brunner-epp-data-considerations-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance
with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF
with any rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2003.
Abstract
This memo discusses data collection considerations and EPP. It is
far from complete, but deadlines press.
Distribution of this document is unlimited.
Dedication
This draft is dedicated to Paul Wellstone, Senator from Minisota.
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The PROVREG WG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. The Problem (or IESG Considerations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. The EPP Data Collection Element <dcp> . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. W3C P3P Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
1. Introduction
After Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on the set of memos that form
the core specification [EPP-P],[EPP-C],[EPP-D],[EPP-H] of a
provisioning protocol for domain names meeting the requirements
contained in [RFC3XXX], an issue relating to the access model for
data was raised.
Provisioning protocols for domain names [RFC2832],[SRS],[EPP-P]
minimally transport data necessary for name servers implementing
[RFC1034][RFC1035] et seq., aka "DNS", to provide mappings between
some addresse(s) and some name(s). This is generally referred to as
"publication" via a zone file. The usage of the PROVREG Working
Group is to refer to this data as "technical data". The prevailing
policy at the time [RFC881] was written, which defined the modern
form of namespaces for doman name (see [RFC606],[RFC608]), required
additional data to be provisioned. This policy was originally
articulated in [RFC742], and subsequently revised in [RFC812], and
ultmately [RFC954]. The usage of the PROVREG Working Group is to
refer to this data as "social data". The primary distinguishing
characteristic between "technical" and "social" data is that absence
of or error in "social" data has no effect on the DNS.
[Discussion of Thick vs Thin.]
Fee-for-service operator of domain name operators, "pay-registries"
hereafter, and fee-for-service regstrars, "pay-registries" hereafter,
generally require sufficient additional data to support payment
mechanisms. One policy for the management of domain name spaces
imposes an expiry property on domain names. This policy is used by
fee-for-service operators for service subscription, and a common form
of this is the annual renewal model. For historical reasons the
prevailing practice by fee-for-service registry and registrar
operators is to require [RFC954] "social data", in addition to the
data sufficient to support payment mechanisms, and to publish the
"social data", following the practices set down in [RFC954].
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
2. Background
Several memos have appeared that attempt to reduce the impact of
trafficing in network endpoint identfiers, e.g.,
1. Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs [RFC2505],
2. DON'T SPEW A Set of Guidelines for Mass Unsolicited Mailings and
Postings (spam*) [RFC2635],
3. How to Advertise Responsibly Using E-Mail and Newsgroups or - how
NOT to $$$$$ MAKE ENEMIES FAST! $$$$$ [RFC3098],
Additionally, several memos have appeared that directly or incidently
reduce the accessibility of network endpoint identifiers to
trafficers in identfiers, e.g.,
1. The IP Network Address Translator (NAT) [RFC1631]
2. Network Address Translator (NAT)-Friendly Application Design
Guidelines [RFC3235
None has been published which obsoletes or updates NICNAME/WHOIS
[RFC954], which mandates whois operators to acquire, and publish
without any access controls, the names, postal, telephonic, and
internet endpoint identfiers, of domain name infrastructure providors
(aka "registrants").
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
3. The PROVREG WG
Some contributors to PROVREG are EPP implementors, and some are
registry (or registrar) operators, or both. The operational
practices of each operator may be limited to a single controlling
authority, however, operators may operate multiple instances, each
with a distinct operational practice. Implementors may seek to
support "lazy evaluation" of operational practices.
In particular, collection practices of registries, registrars are not
assumed to be uniform. This lead to the the requirement:
8.4 Data Collection Requirements [1], GRRQ
The protocol MUST provide services to identify data collection
policies.
Note that the requirement is for collector policies, not originator
preferences.
The PROVREG WG considered the mechanism of the W3C's P3P activity,
and adopted the following basic elements:
1. the mechanism would allow description of data collection
practice, necessarily by the data collector
2. portions of the P3P XML Schema, specifically:
1. <access> element
2. <statement> element containing:
1. <purpose> element
2. <recipient> element
3. <retention> element
4. <expiry> element (optional)
3. [anything else I think of]
4. the optional character of P3P.
These allow for the registry data-collector to announce to the
registrar the registry's data collection practices, and for registrar
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
data to be provisioned to a registry under a specific policy.
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
4. The Problem (or IESG Considerations)
The problem or issue raised upon IESG review of the work product of
the PROVREG contributors is two-fold, some IESG commentors sought
finer granularity for data protection, some to add originator
preference.
The PROVREG contributors considered these possibilities in mid-2001.
A semantic could be attached to an individual XML element, or to an
EPP object, or to an operation on an object, or to a group of EPP
commands and responses, aka, an EPP "session". The semantic could
originate from a registry, or from a regstrar, or from a reseller, or
from a registrant.
Because EPP is protocol between regstrar and registry peers, allowing
resellers or users mechanisms to affect the state of an EPP
transaction was eventually considered "out-of-scope".
Because the initial focus of the PROVREG contributors was on a
connection-oriented, session-maintaining transport (TCP), and
operational practice of PROVREG contributing registry operators and
registrars did not suggest a use case for multiple data collection
practices within a single namespace, reflected within the protocol as
a single logical instance of an EPP server, the "EPP session" was
associated with the <dcp> element.
The proposal from the IESG to the Working Group was to add a new
attribute to every object element in the domain, contact, and host
mappings. The new attribute would be a Boolean type, named
"private", and will be used to note that the value of an element
SHOULD NOT (emphasis added) be disclosed to third parties.
This proposal would change the EPP schema, which of necessity, is a
change to the protocol, as the protocol is defined in XML Schema. It
is not an extension, hence optional to implement. Ironically, it is
optional to evaluate. Conformant EPP+XML parsers could ignore the
value of the attribute, or simply treat as white-space anything
following the closure of each element in the Working Group Schema.
The proposal additionally held that the default value should be
"false", meaning that the element should be disclosed to third
parties.
This proposal would be consistent with the "opt-out" legal regime of
the United States, but inconsistent with the "opt-in" regime of the
OECD States, and inconflict with the "opt-in" regime of the EU
States.
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
Examples of the IESG proposal:
<contact:email private="true">jdoe@example.com</contact:email>
<domain:name private="false">example.com</domain:name>
<host:addr ip="v4" private="true">192.1.2.3</host:addr>
<extension>
<noWhois><contact:email></noWhois>
</extension>
Note: This extension example isn't syntactically valid, it is shown
for expository purposes only.
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
5. The EPP Data Collection Element <dcp>
From the -07 xsd.
<!--
A greeting is sent by a server in response to a client connection
or <hello>.
-->
<complexType name="greetingType">
<sequence>
...
<element name="dcp" type="epp:dcpType" minOccurs="0"/>
...
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!--
Data Collection Policy types.
-->
<complexType name="dcpType">
<sequence>
<element name="access" type="epp:dcpAccessType"/>
<element name="statement" type="epp:dcpStatementType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element name="expiry" type="epp:dcpExpiryType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="dcpAccessType">
<choice>
<element name="all"/>
<element name="none"/>
<element name="null"/>
<element name="other"/>
<element name="personal"/>
<element name="personalAndOther"/>
</choice>
</complexType>
<complexType name="dcpStatementType">
<sequence>
<element name="purpose" type="epp:dcpPurposeType"/>
<element name="recipient" type="epp:dcpRecipientType"/>
<element name="retention" type="epp:dcpRetentionType"/>
</sequence>
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
</complexType>
<complexType name="dcpPurposeType">
<sequence>
<element name="admin"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="contact"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="other"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="prov"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="dcpRecipientType">
<sequence>
<element name="other"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="ours" type="epp:dcpOursType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element name="public"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="same"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="unrelated"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="dcpOursType">
<sequence>
<element name="recDesc" type="epp:dcpRecDescType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<simpleType name="dcpRecDescType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="1"/>
<maxLength value="255"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<complexType name="dcpRetentionType">
<choice>
<element name="business"/>
<element name="indefinite"/>
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
<element name="legal"/>
<element name="none"/>
<element name="stated"/>
</choice>
</complexType>
<complexType name="dcpExpiryType">
<choice>
<element name="absolute" type="dateTime"/>
<element name="relative" type="duration"/>
</choice>
</complexType>
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
6. W3C P3P Overview
This section left mostly blank for the time being.
Some intro blurb for those lacking clue.
P3P requires that policy reference files MUST be encoded using UTF-8,
(2.3.2), and all policies MUST be encoded using UTF-8 (3.2).
The exception to this is the p3p-link-tag, which has the same
character encoding will be the same as that of the HTML document it
is embedded in.
This is not required by XML, see draft-brunner-epp-smtp-00 for
details.
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
7. Discussion
There are 5 areas of significant difference between the PROVREG and
IESG approaches:
1. optional element vs pervasive attribute
2. command (or "session") scope vs element scope
3. extensible vocabulary vs binary toggle
4. collector policy vs user preference
5. undisclosed policy default vs opt-out preference default
What follows is a brief discussion of these.
The impact of the IESG's proposal is that every implementor would
have to implement the attribute. While evaluation is "MAY",
discussed later, the schema-change is "MUST". Since implemention of
the <dcp> element is optional, and may be absent from a server's
<greeting> response, it is possible that the IESG's proposal would
have the effect of making the PROVREG approach moot.
The IESG's proposal is that third parties are not recipients of data,
ignoring the difference between "preference" and (IESG) and "policy"
(PROVREG). There is no benefit from narrowing the scope to a leaf
elements, except subdivision "social" data into discretionary
categories with combinatorial scaling issues. Indicating that third
parties are not recipients of data is trivially accomplished with the
<dcp>.
The IESG's proposal is restricted to a binary value set, or possibly
an enumerated set. If enumerated, changes to it would require a
protocol version identifier change, as it is a proposed pervasive
property of the EPP schema. The PROVREG approach is extensible, and
uses a well-known vocabulary covering registrant access to the
registry-resident data, recipients of the registrant data,
repurposing of registrant data, and retention of registrant data,
with problem-domain specific modification.
The IESG's proposal is to express the third-party disclosure
preference of registrants. EPP clients MUST emit "privacy"
attributes on each <element>, which EPP servers MAY ignore. The
PROVREG approach allows EPP clients to REQUIRE EPP servers to emit a
<dcp> element, and evalute the policy, before sending data to the EPP
server. The net of the IESG proposal is that registries may accept
registrant social data with this preference, and may then ignore it,
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
except for faithfully returning the attribue's value in <info>
responses, but treating the data as unencumbered. The user's
PREFERENCE is not binding. The PROVREG approach is the collector
states its policy, allowing registrant selection of operators based
upon policy.
The IESG's proposal is that the registrant must opt-out of third-
party disclosure. The PROVREG approach is that the registrars data
collection policy is unknown unless stated.
One issue remains in the author's mind as a sub-text in the IESG's
proposal that is worth pursuing. Charitably restated, the IESG
proposes element-wise access policy for the EPP schema. Mechanism
left to the imagination. This can be accomplished by element-wise
encryption, which has the disadvantage of adding key management to
the problem doamin, and the advantages of allowing a richer access
policy. The W3C XML Encryption Activity has published in this area.
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC
2026, BCP 9, October 1996.
[2] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol", , August
2002.
[3] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol Contact
Mapping", , August 2002.
[4] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol Domain Name
Mapping", , August 2002.
[5] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol Host Mapping",
, August 2002.
Author's Address
Eric Brunner-Williams
Wampumpeag, LLC
1415 Forest Avenue
Portland, Maine 04103
United States
EMail: brunner@nic-naa.net
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EPP Data October 2002
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions over the years
of the Chair, Staff, Member Company contributing representitives, and
Invited Experts of the W3C's P3P Specification Working Group. Many
thanks go to the contributors to the IETF EPP drafts.
In addition the author thanks Marshall Rose who provided the
extremely useful [RFC2629] document type description and xml2rfc tool
used to edit this specification. The author may yet learn how to use
this tool.
Brunner-Williams Expires April 28, 2003 [Page 16]
