Internet Engineering Task Force S. Hollenbeck Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. February 21, 2001 Expires: August 21, 2001 Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol Requirements Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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. Abstract This document describes high-level functional and interface requirements for a client-server protocol for the registration and management of Internet domain names in shared registries. Specific technical requirements detailed for protocol design are not presented here. Instead, this document focuses on the basic functions and interfaces required of a protocol to support multiple registry and registrar operational models. Conventions Used In This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................. 3 1.1 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations .................... 3 2. General Description .......................................... 4 2.1 System Perspective .......................................... 4 2.2 System Functions ............................................ 4 2.3 User Characteristics ........................................ 4 2.4 Assumptions ................................................. 4 3. Functional Requirements ...................................... 6 3.1 Session Management .......................................... 6 3.2 Identification and Authentication ........................... 6 3.3 Transaction Identification .................................. 6 3.4 Object Management ........................................... 7 3.5 Domain Status Indicators .................................... 12 3.6 Transaction Completion Status ............................... 12 4. External Interface Requirements .............................. 13 4.1 User Interfaces ............................................. 13 4.2 Hardware Interfaces ......................................... 13 4.3 Software Interfaces ......................................... 13 4.4 Communications Interfaces ................................... 13 5. Performance Requirements ..................................... 14 6. Design Constraints ........................................... 14 6.1 Standards Compliance ........................................ 14 6.2 Hardware Limitations ........................................ 14 7. Service Attributes ........................................... 15 7.1 Reliability ................................................. 15 7.2 Availability ................................................ 15 7.3 Scalability ................................................. 15 7.4 Maintainability ............................................. 15 7.5 Extensibility ............................................... 16 8. Other Requirements ........................................... 17 8.1 Database Requirements ....................................... 17 8.2 Operational Requirements .................................... 17 8.3 Site Adaptation Requirements ................................ 17 8.4 Data Collection Requirements ................................ 17 9. Internationalization Considerations .......................... 18 10. IANA Considerations ......................................... 19 11. Security Considerations ..................................... 20 12. References .................................................. 21 13. Editor's Address ............................................ 21 A. Revision History ............................................. 22 B. Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 23 Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 1. Introduction The advent of shared domain name registration systems illustrates the utility of a common, generic protocol for registry-registrar interaction. A standard generic protocol will allow registrars to communicate with multiple registries through a common interface, reducing operational complexity. This document describes high level functional and interface requirements for a generic provisioning protocol suitable for registry-registrar operations. Detailed technical requirements are not addressed in this document. This document is being discussed on the "ietf-provreg" mailing list. To join the list, send a message to with the words "subscribe ietf-provreg" in the body of the message. There is a web site for the list archives at http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg. 1.1 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Definitions for many of the terms used in this document can be found in [DEFNS]. ccTLD: Country Code Top Level Domain. ".us" is an example of a ccTLD. CORE: Council of Registrars DNS: Domain Name System gTLD: Generic Top Level Domain. ".com" is an example of a gTLD. IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force IP Address: Either or both IPv4 or IPv6 address. IPv4: Internet Protocol version 4 IPv6: Internet Protocol version 6 NSI: Network Solutions, Inc. RRP: Registry-Registrar Protocol TLD: Top Level Domain. A generic term used to describe both gTLDs and ccTLDs that exist under the top-level root of the domain name hierarchy. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 2. General Description A basic understanding of domain name registration systems provides focus for the enumeration of functional and interface requirements of a protocol to serve those systems. This section provides a high-level description of domain name registration systems to provide context for the requirements identified later in this document. 2.1 System Perspective A domain name registration system consists of a protocol and associated software and hardware that permits registrars to provide Internet domain name registration services within the TLDs administered by a registry. A registration system may be shared among multiple competing registrars, or it may be served by a single registrar that is either tightly or loosely coupled with back-end registry services. The system providing registration services for the .com, .net, and .org gTLDs is an example of a shared registration system serving multiple competing registrars. The systems providing registration services for some ccTLDs and the .gov and .mil gTLDs are examples of TLDs served by a single registrar. 2.2 System Functions Registrars access a registry through a protocol to register objects and perform object management functions. Required functions include session management; object creation, update, renewal, and deletion; object query; and object transfer. The registry generates DNS zone files for the TLDs it serves. These zone files are created and distributed to a series of name servers that provide the foundation for the domain name system. 2.3 User Characteristics Protocol users fall into two broad categories: entities that use protocol client implementations and entities that use protocol server implementations, though an entity may provide both client and server services if it provides intermediate services. A protocol provides a loose coupling between these communicating entities. 2.4 Assumptions There is one and only one registry that is authoritative for a given TLD. A registry can be authoritative for more than one TLD. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 Some registry operations MAY be billable. The impact of a billable operation SHOULD be mitigated through the specification of non- billable operations that allow a registrar to make informed decisions before executing billable operations. A registry MAY choose to implement a subset of the features provided by a generic registry-registrar protocol. A thin registry, for example, MAY not provide services to register social information. Specification of minimal implementation compliance requirements is thus an exercise left for a formal protocol definition document that addresses the functional requirements specified here. A protocol that meets the requirements described here MAY be called something other than "Generic Registry Registrar Protocol". The requirements described in this document are not intended to limit the set of objects that may be managed by a generic registry-registrar protocol. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 3. Functional Requirements This section describes functional requirements for a registry- registrar protocol. Technical requirements that describe how these requirements must be met are out of scope for this document. 3.1 Session Management [1] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly establish a client session with a registry server. [2] In a connection-oriented environment, a server MUST respond to connection attempts with information that identifies the server and the default server protocol version. [3] The protocol MUST provide services that allow a client to request use of a specific protocol version as part of negotiating a session. [4] The protocol MUST provide services that allow a server to decline use of a specific protocol version as part of negotiating a session. [5] A session MUST NOT be established if the client and server are unable to reach agreement on the protocol version to be used for the requested session. [6] The protocol MUST provide services to explicitly end an established session. [7] The protocol MUST provide services that ensure transactional integrity if a session is aborted prematurely. 3.2 Identification and Authentication [1] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to identify registrar clients and registry servers before granting access to other protocol services. [2] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to authenticate registrar clients and registry servers before granting access to other protocol services. [3] The protocol or another layered protocol MUST provide services to negotiate an authentication mechanism acceptable to both client and server. 3.3 Transaction Identification [1] Registry operations that create, modify, or delete objects MUST be Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 associated with a registry-unique identifier. The protocol MUST allow each transaction to be identified in a permanent and globally unique manner to facilitate temporal ordering and state management services. 3.4 Object Management This sections describes requirements for object management, including registration, association, update, transfer, renewal/extension, deletion, and query. 3.4.1 Object Registration [1] The protocol MUST provide services to register Internet domain names. [2] The protocol MUST permit a starting and ending time for a domain name registration to be negotiated, thereby allowing a registry to implement policies allowing a range of registration validity periods, and enabling registrars to select a period for each registration they submit from within the valid range based on out-of-band negotiation between the registrar and the registrant. Registries SHOULD be allowed to accept indefinitely valid registrations if the policy that they are implementing permits, and to specify a default validity period if one is not selected by a registrar. Registries MUST be allowed to specify minimal validity periods consistent with prevailing or preferred practices for fee-for-service recovery. The protocol MUST provide features to ensure that both registry and registrar have a mutual understanding of the validity period at the conclusion of a successful registration event. [3] The protocol MUST provide services to register name servers. Name server registration MUST NOT be limited to a specific period of time. Name servers registered within the registry's authoritative TLDs MUST be registered with a valid IPv4 or IPv6 address. A name server MAY be registered with multiple IP addresses. An IP address MAY be shared among multiple name servers using distinct server names. Name servers that exist in TLDs other than those for which the registry is authoritative MUST be registered without an IP address providing that the server's TLD is itself a valid TLD. [4] The protocol MUST provide services to manage name servers that MAY be associated with multiple domains. [5] Name servers associated with a domain MAY registered in a different domain or even in a TLD for which the registry is not authoritative. This means that IP addresses for name servers whose domain name exists in another TLD MUST be registered only in the registry that is authoritative for the TLD of the name server. Glue Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 records (DNS "A" records) MUST only be created for DNS "NS" records for which the registry is authoritative. [6] The protocol MUST provide services to register social information describing human and organizational entities. Registration of social information MUST NOT be limited to a specific period of time. Social information MAY include a name (individual name, organization name, or both), address (including street address, city, state or province (if applicable), postal code, and country), voice telephone number, e-mail address, and facsimile telephone number. [7] All registered objects MUST be referenced using identifiers that are unique to the registry. For example, domain names, name server names, and social information identifiers MUST be registry-unique. [8] Protocol services to register an object MUST be available to all authorized registrars. 3.4.2 Object Association [1] The protocol MUST provide services to associate name servers with domain names. A domain name MAY have multiple authoritative name servers. Name servers MAY be authoritative for multiple domain names. [2] The protocol MUST provide services to associate IP addresses with name servers. Name servers MAY have multiple IP addresses. An IP address MAY be associated with multiple name servers. [3] The protocol MUST provide services to associate social information with other objects. Social information associations MUST be identified by type. "Registrant" is an example social information type that MAY be associated with an object such as a domain name. [4] Some managed objects represent shared resources that MAY be referenced by multiple registrars. Requests to associate a known shared resource object with another registered object MUST NOT be limited to the registrar that sponsors the registered objects. For example, server ns1.example.com (managed by registrar X) MAY be associated with both domain example.com (managed by registrar X) and domain test.com (managed by registrar Y). Registrar X maintains administrative control over domain example.com and server ns1.example.com, and registrar Y maintains administrative control over domain test.com. Registrar Y does not have administrative control over server ns1.example.com. 3.4.3 Object Update [1] The protocol MUST provide services to update information Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 associated with registered Internet domain names. [2] The protocol MUST provide services to update information associated with registered name servers. [3] The protocol MUST provide services to update social information associated with registered human and organizational entities. [4] The protocol MUST provide services to confirm registrar authorization to update an object. [5] Requests to update a registered object MUST be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the registered object. Unauthorized attempts to update a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected. 3.4.4 Object Transfer [1] The protocol MUST provide services to transfer domain names among authorized registrars. Name servers registered in a domain being transferred MUST be transferred along with the domain itself. For example, name servers "ns1.example.com" and "ns2.example.com" MUST be implicitly transferred when domain "example.com" is transferred. [2] The protocol MUST provide services to transfer social information objects among authorized registrars. [3] Transfer requests MUST be initiated by the registrar who wishes to become the new administrator of an object. [4] The protocol MUST provide services to confirm registrar authorization to transfer an object. [5] The protocol MUST provide services that allow the requesting registrar to cancel a requested object transfer before the request has been approved or rejected by the original sponsoring registrar. Requests to cancel the transfer of registered objects MUST be limited to the registrar that requested transfer of the registered object. Unauthorized attempts to cancel the transfer of a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected. [6] The protocol MUST provide services that allow the original sponsoring registrar to approve or reject a requested object transfer. Requests to approve or reject the transfer of registered objects MUST be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the registered object. Unauthorized attempts to approve or reject the transfer of a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected. [7] The protocol MUST provide services that allow both the original Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 sponsoring registrar and the potential new registrar to monitor the status of both pending and completed transfer requests. [8] Transfer of an object MAY extend the object's registration period. If an object's registration period will be extended as the result of a transfer, the new expiration date and time MUST be returned after successful completion of a transfer request. [9] Requests to initiate the transfer of a registered object MUST be available to all authorized registrars. 3.4.5 Object Renewal/Extension [1] The protocol MUST provide services to renew or extend the validity period of registered domain names. If applicable, the new expiration date and time MUST be returned after successful completion of a request to renew or extend the validity period. [2] Requests to renew or extend the validity period of a registered object MUST be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the registered object. Unauthorized attempts to renew or extend the validity period of a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected. [3] The protocol MUST provide services to confirm registrar authorization to renew or extend the validity period of an object. 3.4.6 Object Deletion [1] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a domain name from the registry. [2] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a name server from the registry. [3] The protocol MUST provide services to remove a social information object from the registry. [4] The protocol MUST provide services to confirm registrar authorization to remove an object. [5] Requests to remove a registered object MUST be limited to the registrar that currently sponsors the registered object. Unauthorized attempts to remove a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected. 3.4.7 Object Existence Query This section describes requirements for a light weight query mechanism whose sole purpose is to determine if an object exists in a registry. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 [1] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a domain name exists in the registry. Domain names MUST be searchable by fully qualified name. [2] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a name server exists in the registry. Name servers MUST be searchable by fully qualified name. [3] The protocol MUST provide services to determine if a social information object exists in the registry. Social information MUST be searchable by a registry-unique identifier. [4] A query to determine if an object exists in the registry MUST return only a positive or negative response so that server software that responds to this query can be optimized for speed. [5] Requests to determine the existence of a registered object MUST be available to all authorized registrars. 3.4.8 Object Information Query This section describes requirements for a query mechanism whose purpose is to provide detailed information describing objects that exist in a registry. [1] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve information describing a domain name from the registry. Returned information MUST include the identifier of the current sponsoring registrar, the identifier of the registrar that originally registered the domain, the creation date and time, the expiration date and time (if any), the date and time of the last successful update (if any), the identifier of the registrar that performed the last update, the date and time of last successful transfer request or completed transfer (if any), the current status of the domain, the most recent authorization information, identifiers describing social information associated with the domain, and the child name servers registered in the domain. The most recent authorization information MUST be returned only to the current sponsoring registrar. [2] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve information describing a name server from the registry. Returned information MUST include the identifier of the current sponsoring registrar, the identifier of the registrar that originally registered the name server, the creation date and time, the date and time of the last successful update (if any), the identifier of the registrar that performed the last update, the date and time of last successful transfer request or completed transfer (if any), the IP addresses currently associated with the name server, and the most recent Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 authorization information. The most recent authorization information MUST be returned only to the current sponsoring registrar. [3] The protocol MUST provide services to retrieve social information from the registry. Returned information MUST include identification attributes (which MAY include name, address, telephone numbers, and e-mail address), the identifier of the registrar that originally registered the information, the creation date and time, the date and time of the last successful update (if any), the identifier of the registrar that performed the last update, the date and time of last successful transfer request or completed transfer (if any), and the most recent authorization information. The most recent authorization information MUST be returned only to the current sponsoring registrar. [4] Requests to retrieve information describing a registered object MAY be granted by the registrar that currently sponsors the registered object. Unauthorized attempts to retrieve information describing a registered object MUST be explicitly rejected. 3.5 Domain Status Indicators [1] The protocol MUST provide status indicators that identify the operational state of a domain name. Indicators MAY be provided to identify a newly created state (the domain has been registered but has not yet appeared in a zone), a nominal active state (the domain can be modified and is published in a zone), an inactive state (the domain can be modified but is not published in a zone because it has no authoritative name servers), a hold state (the domain may not be modified and is not published in a zone), a lock state (the domain may not be modified and is published in a zone), a pending transfer state, and a pending removal state. [2] If provided, indicators for hold and lock status MUST allow independent setting by both registry and registrar. [3] A domain MAY have multiple statuses at any given time. Some statuses MAY be mutually exclusive. 3.6 Transaction Completion Status [1] The protocol MUST provide services that unambiguously note the success or failure of every transaction. Individual success and error conditions MUST be noted distinctly. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 4. External Interface Requirements External interfaces define the interaction points between a system and entities that communicate with the system. Specific areas of interest include user interfaces, hardware interfaces, software interfaces, and communications interfaces. 4.1 User Interfaces [1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST NOT define any features that introduce user interface limitations. 4.2 Hardware Interfaces [1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST NOT define any features that introduce hardware interface limitations. 4.3 Software Interfaces [1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST NOT define any features that introduce software interface limitations. 4.4 Communications Interfaces [1] Registries, registrars, and registrants interact using a wide spectrum of communications interfaces built upon multiple protocols, including transport layer protocols such as TCP and application layer protocols such as SMTP. A generic registry-registrar protocol SHOULD be serviceable over multiple standard communications protocols. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 5. Performance Requirements [1] Run-time performance is an absolutely critical aspect of protocol usability. While performance is very heavily dependent on the hardware and software architecture that implements a protocol, protocol features can have a direct impact on the ability of the underlying architecture to provide optimal performance. A generic registry- registrar protocol MUST be usable in both high volume and low volume operating environments. 6. Design Constraints Protocol designers need to be aware of issues beyond functional and interface requirements when balancing protocol design decisions. This section describes additional factors that may have an impact on protocol design, including standards compliance and hardware limitations. 6.1 Standards Compliance [1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST conform to current IETF standards. Standards for domain and host name syntax, IP address syntax, security, and transport are particularly relevant. Emerging standards for the Domain Name System MUST be considered as they approach maturity. 6.2 Hardware Limitations [1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST NOT define any features that preclude hardware independence. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 7. Service Attributes Elements of service beyond functional and interface requirements are essential factors to consider as part of a protocol design effort. This section describes several important service elements that MUST be addressed by protocol designers, including reliability, availability, scalability, maintainability, and extensibility. 7.1 Reliability [1] Reliability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol provides a consistent, dependable level of service. Reliability is an important attribute for a domain name management protocol. An unreliable protocol increases the risk of data exchange errors, which at one extreme may have a direct impact on protocol usability and at the other extreme may introduce discontinuity between registry and registrar data stores. A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST include features that maximize reliability at the application protocol layer. Services provided by underlying transport, session, and presentation protocols SHOULD also be considered when addressing application protocol reliability. [2] Default protocol actions for when a request or event times out MUST be well defined. 7.2 Availability [1] Availability is a measure of the extent to which the services provided by a protocol are accessible for an intended use. Availability of an application layer protocol is primarily dependent on the software and hardware systems that implement the protocol. That is, the systems that implement the protocol MUST themselves be inherently available. As such, a generic registry-registrar protocol MUST NOT include any features that impinge on the underlying reliability of the software and hardware systems needed to implement the protocol. 7.3 Scalability [1] Scalability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can accommodate use growth while preserving acceptable operational characteristics. A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST be capable of operating at an acceptable level as the load on registry and registrar systems increases. 7.4 Maintainability [1] Maintainability is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 be adapted or modified to address unforeseen operational needs or defects. A generic registry-registrar protocol SHOULD be developed under the nominal working group processes of the IETF to provide a well-known mechanism for ongoing maintenance. 7.5 Extensibility [1] Extensibility is a measure of the extent to which a protocol can be adapted for future uses that were not readily evident when the protocol was originally designed. A generic registry-registrar protocol SHOULD provide features that at a minimum allow for the management of new object types without requiring revisions to the protocol itself. [2] The requirements described in this document are not intended to limit the set of objects that may be managed by a generic registry- registrar protocol. A generic protocol MUST include features that allow extension to object types that are not described in this document. [3] The protocol MUST provide an optional field within all commands whose format and use will be controlled by individual registry policy. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 8. Other Requirements Certain aspects of anticipated operational environments SHOULD be considered when designing a generic registry-registrar protocol. Areas of concern include database operations, operations, site adaptation, and data collection. 8.1 Database Requirements [1] A generic registry-registrar protocol MUST NOT have any database dependencies. However, efficient use of database operations and resources MUST be considered as part of the protocol design effort. The protocol SHOULD provide atomic features that can be efficiently implemented to minimize database load. 8.2 Operational Requirements [1] Registry-registrar interactions at the protocol level SHOULD operate without human intervention. However, intermediate services that preserve the integrity of the protocol MAY be provided. For example, an intermediate service that determines if a registrant is authorized to register a name in a TLD MAY be provided. [2] Protocol clients and servers MUST maintain a consistent understanding of the current date and time to effectively manage objects with temporal properties. 8.3 Site Adaptation Requirements [1] Registries and registrars have varying business and operational requirements. Several factors, including governance standards, local laws, customs, and business practices all play roles in determining how registries and registrars are operated. A generic registry- registrar protocol MUST be flexible enough to operate in diverse registry-registrar environments. 8.4 Data Collection Requirements [1] Some of the data exchanged between a registrar and registry MAY be considered personal, private, or otherwise sensitive. Disclosure of such information MAY be restricted by laws and/or business practices. A generic protocol MUST provide services to identify information whose disclosure is not strictly required for technical reasons. [2] Some of the social information exchanged between a registrar and registry MAY be REQUIRED to create, manage, or operate Internet or DNS infrastructure facilities, such as zone files. Such information is subject to public disclosure per relevant IETF standards. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 9. Internationalization Considerations [1] [RFC1035] restricts the encoding of Internet host and domain names in the DNS to a subset of the 7-bit US-ASCII character set. More recent standards, such as [RFC2130] and [RFC2277], describe the need to develop protocols for an international Internet. These and other standards MUST be considered during the protocol design process to ensure world-wide usability of a generic registry registrar protocol. [2] The protocol MUST allow exchange of data in formats consistent with current international agreements for the representation of such objects. In particular, this means that addresses MUST include country, that telephone numbers MUST start with the international prefix "+", and that appropriate thought be given to the usability of information in both local and international contexts. This MAY mean that some elements (like names and addresses) need to be represented multiple times, or formatted for different contexts (for instance English/French in Canada, or Latin/ideographic in Japan). [3] All date and time values specified in a generic registry-registrar protocol MUST be expressed in Universal Coordinated Time. Dates and times MUST include information to represent a four-digit calendar year, a calendar month, a calendar day, hours, minutes, seconds, fractional seconds, and the time zone for Universal Coordinated Time. Calendars apart from the Gregorian calendar MUST NOT be used Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 10. IANA Considerations IANA has assigned several TCP and UDP ports for use within shared registration systems. The assignments can be identified in two broad categories: those assigned for use with the CORE Shared Registry System Protocol (SRSP) and those assigned for use with the NSI Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP). The CORE SRSP assignments are as follows: srssend 362/tcp SRS Send srssend 362/udp SRS Send srsp 2682/tcp SRSP srsp 2682/udp SRSP The NSI RRP assignments are as follows: rrp 648/tcp Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) rrp 648/udp Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) These assignments SHOULD be preserved as long as the corresponding systems are operational. Additional IANA services MAY be required to support testing and deployment of protocol implementations. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 11. Security Considerations Several security services, including confidentiality, authentication, access control, integrity, and non-repudiation SHOULD be applied to protect interactions between registries and registrars. Confidentiality services protect sensitive exchanged information from inadvertent disclosure. Authentication services confirm the claimed identity of registries and registrars before engaging in online transactions. Access control services control access to data and services based on identity. Integrity services guarantee that exchanged data has not been altered between the registry and the registrar. Non-repudiation services provide assurance that the sender of a transaction can not deny being the source of the transaction, and that the recipient cannot deny being the receiver of the transaction. [1] Security services MUST be provided to protect against the following types of attack: eavesdropping, replay, message insertion, deletion, modification, and man-in-the-middle. [2] This document describes requirements for basic user identification and authentication services. A generic protocol MAY include additional security services to protect against the attacks described here, or a generic protocol MUST depend on lower-layer protocols to provide additional security services. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 12. References [DEFNS] R. Rader: "Domain Name and Related Definitions", draft-ietf- provreg-dn-defn-00.txt (work in progress). [RFC1035] P. Mockapetris: "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION", RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC2119] S. Bradner: "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2130] C. Weider et al.: "The Report of the IAB Character Set Workshop", RFC 2130, April 1997. [RFC2277] H. Alvestrand: "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. 13. Editor's Address Scott Hollenbeck VeriSign Global Registry Services 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166-6503 USA shollenbeck@verisign.com Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 A. Revision History -00: First working group version produced from an earlier individual submission draft, draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06.txt. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Generic RRP Requirements February 21, 2001 B. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2001. All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Hollenbeck Expires August 21, 2001 [Page 23]