Commit 03d31486 authored by Stéphane Bortzmeyer's avatar Stéphane Bortzmeyer

Version -01. Closes #3 #6

parent da6cf868
......@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
<phone>+33 1 39 30 83 46</phone>
<email>bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr</email><uri>http://www.afnic.fr/</uri></address>
</author>
<date year="2018" month="TODO" day="TODO"/>
<date year="2018" month="January" day="15"/>
<area>General</area>
<keyword>EPP</keyword>
<keyword>Extensible Provisioning Protocol</keyword>
......@@ -205,14 +205,15 @@ target="I-D.bortzmeyer-dname-root"/>. Information exchanged via this mapping
server authorizes DNAME delegation for this specific domain
(EPP login information is not sufficient because the fact
that the server supports the extension does not mean it is
authorized for all names. TODO see issue #3 to discuss
it.</t>
authorized for all names.) [REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION: issue
#3 discussed the case.]</t>
</section>
<section title="EPP &lt;info&gt; Command" anchor="info">
<t>This extension does not add any elements to the EPP
&lt;info&gt; command described in the EPP domain mapping
<xref target="RFC5731"/>. TODO see issue #6. However,
<xref target="RFC5731"/>. [REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION: issue
#6 discussed whether or not it would be a good idea.] However,
additional elements are defined for the &lt;info&gt;
response.</t>
......@@ -290,7 +291,7 @@ S:</epp>
transfer.</t>
<t> Note that this may be one additional reason for a
transfer to fail: if the gaining registrar does not support
DNAME delegation.</t>
DNAME delegation. The server MUST return error code 2106.</t>
</section>
</section>
......@@ -315,7 +316,8 @@ S:</epp>
The &lt;dnameDeleg:dnameTarget&gt; has a domain name as
value. A client MUST NOT send both a
&lt;dnameDeleg:dnameTarget&gt; and &lt;domain:ns&gt;
elements. TODO See issue #4 for the error code.</t>
elements. TODO See issue #4 for the choice of the error
code(s).</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork>Example &lt;create&gt; Command:
......@@ -389,7 +391,10 @@ C:</epp>
switch, per its policy. In the same way, a RFC 5731 <xref
target="RFC5731"/> update with NS information, without the
extension decribed here, switches to NS
delegation if the domain was previously DNAME-delegated.</t>
delegation if the domain was previously DNAME-delegated.</t>
<t>TODO there is an issue with the switch from NS to DNAME
delegation if the domain had in-bailiwick name servers. See
issue #7.</t>
<t>
<figure>
......@@ -494,13 +499,13 @@ END
sponsoring client MUST be rejected with an appropriate EPP authorization
error.</t>
<t>The provisioning service described in this document involves the
exchange of information that can have an operational impact on the
DNS. A trust relationship MUST exist between the EPP client and server,
and provisioning of DNAME delegation MUST only be done after the
identities of both parties have been confirmed using a strong
authentication mechanism. See <xref target="RFC5734"/>, section
8.</t>
<t>The provisioning service described in this document involves
the exchange of information that can have an operational impact
on the DNS. A trust relationship MUST exist between the EPP
client and server, and provisioning of DNAME delegation MUST
only be done after the identities of both parties have been
confirmed using a strong authentication mechanism. This is just
a repeat of <xref target="RFC5734"/>, section 8.</t>
<t>An EPP client might be acting as an agent for a zone administrator who
wants to send DNAME delegation information to be published by the server
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment