Application and TMCH drafts

Chris Wright <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.provreg
Message-ID <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB76DCB1A5AA@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
All,

Attached are the alternative drafts mentioned earlier.

These drafts take a different approach to the Verisign draft, however it does pull together concepts from other documents, and previous feedback we have given to Verisign on their draft which has been incorporated (that is why there are similarities).

Separating TMCH from launch activities is the first difference. Decoupling these, separation of concerns, is good software engineering practice. By separating the TMCH, and other 'data' from the actual application, this promotes the most reuse of the application draft - it allows the launch (application) draft to be used by registries that do not require TMCH integration (ccTLDs, IDN ccTLDs etc), or require different trademark field, for example, to the ones described in the Verisign draft.

Features of the Application draft:


*         Application draft allows for submission of applications for domain names either during a sunrise, land rush or other periods

*         Applications can be used for sunrise, land-rush and even release of reserved names after go-live, during general availability

*         Application check command can be used to check availability of names during an application period (allows releases of sets of names during general availability) - this could be the launch of new IDN languages or release of previously held back names etc

*         We improve the use of status values by making them specific about what actions can and can't be taken, so that clients of not require external knowledge about the 'meaning' behind a particular 'state' which may also vary between registries, thus complicating Registrars lives further

*         Does not dictate phase requirements, allowing registries to decide own business models for launch

*         Does not mandate data that is to be passed with applications (like trademark data or other information)- different extensions should be used for describing data to be sent with applications, data that is sent with applications may be the same data that is to be sent with domain creates for example, the TMCH draft is an example of a draft that defines data that is to be sent with an application (or could also be sent with a domain create for someone running a first come, first server sunrise and thus not requiring 'applications' at all) -  most registries already implement a 'key-value-pair' extension of sorts to facilitate the transfer of arbitrary data (from the protocol perspective)

Features of the TMCH draft:


*         TMCH is isolated draft and doesn't tie supporting of applications to support of TMCH - this enables TMCH data to be passed with just a domain create command or a domain create that uses the application extension as well, allowing first come first servers, or applications, or any other thing that a registry may dream up - the TMCH is not coupled to an domain 'application process'

*         TMCH draft defines base64 transport for SMD only, reducing options, thus simplifying implementation - this allows the format of the SMD to be locked down independent of the this draft, and addresses issues with XML signature validation - it also allows non XML format SMDs to be used if deemed required (given TMCH specification is not locked down yet)

We feel these documents are smaller, simplified and, in our opinion, easier to understand.

Please note we are submitting these drafts through IETF processes at the moment.

Thanks

[cid:[email protected]]
Chris Wright
Chief Technology Officer

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P   +61 3 9866 3710
M  +61 401 873 798
E   [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/>

ARI Registry Services is an evolution of AusRegistry International.
Follow us on Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/ausregistryint>
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
image001.png (image/png, 3.7 KB) - not displayed
draft-rbp-application-epp-mapping-01.txt (text/plain, 28.9 KB)


Internet Engineering Task Force                              J. Mitchell
Internet-Draft                                                 C. Wright
Intended status: Informational                     ARI Registry Services
Expires: June 4, 2013                                      December 2012


      Domain Name Application Extension Mapping for the Extensible
                      Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
                  draft-rbp-application-epp-mapping-01

Abstract

   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for the provisioning and management of applications
   for domain names, suitable for periods such as a sunrise or landrush
   during which servers do not offer first-come first-served
   registrations.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Object Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Application Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Phase Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Domain Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  EPP Command Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.1.  EPP <check> Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.2.  EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.2.1.  EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.2.2.  EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.3.  EPP <renew> Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.4.  EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.5.  EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Formal Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17























Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


1.  Introduction

   The EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731] describes mechanisms for the
   provisioning and management of domain names.  This works well for
   domain name registries that use a first-come first-served allocation
   method, however registries may define periods during which multiple
   applications for a domain name are accepted.

   This extension describes the commands and responses used for the
   manipulation of domain name application objects.  The authors
   recognise that additional information is often required to support
   applications for domain names, including but not limited to trademark
   information or proof of eligibility.  This extension does not provide
   mechanisms for the collection of this information, instead other
   documents should be published that describe the mechanisms for
   transport and validation of supporting information.

   Extension to the domain name mapping was preferred over re-defining
   the domain object fields in a domain name application object mapping.
   Implementers should be aware that this document places restrictions
   on the use of certain domain object attributes for the period during
   which the application is relevant.

1.1.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   "application-1.0" is used as an abbreviation for
   "urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0".  The XML namespace prefix
   "app" is used, but implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead
   employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to
   interpret and output the XML documents.


2.  Object Attributes

   An application for a domain name results in an object EPP Domain Name
   Mapping [RFC5731].  Those new elements, belonging exclusively to the
   application, are described here, as well as the restrictions placed
   on the information available in the domain object.

2.1.  Application Identifier

   Servers may allow multiple applications of a given domain name during
   relevant registry-specific phases.  On receiving a request to create
   a domain name, the server creates an application object corresponding



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   to the request, and assigns a unique application identifier.  In
   order to facilitate correlation, all subsequent operations on the
   application object MUST be qualified by the previously assigned
   application identifier.

   Servers MAY use both the application identifier and domain name to
   uniquely identify an application.  Clients MUST ensure that commands
   to query or transform an application, include the domain name and
   application identifier associated with the original <create> command
   and response.

   Application identifiers SHOULD NOT be composed of characters that
   cannot be represented in US-ASCII, and SHOULD NOT exceed the length
   of a ROID.  Servers SHOULD NOT allocate application identifiers that
   differ only in the casing of the letters.

   Clients MUST NOT assume any particular identifier syntax, and should
   be able to handle identifiers consisting of numbers, letters and
   punctuation.

2.2.  Phase Identifier

   The server may support multiple rounds of applications, either
   sequentially or simultaneously, each with their own participation
   requirements.

   Clients are expected to know the relevant phase identifier in use for
   a particular server.  Out of band mechanisms should be used to
   determine the available phases and the requirements for submission of
   an application during those phases.

   This document reserves the following two names for their specific
   uses.  Registries SHOULD accept these values during the relevant
   phase to promote interoperability.

   o  tmch-sunrise - the phase where sunrise codes authorized by the
      trademark clearinghouse are used to prove eligibility.  This
      refers to the least restrictive phase should two or more phases
      use sunrise codes from the trademark clearinghouse.

   o  landrush - the phase immediately prior to first-come first-served
      having no restrictions in addition to normal registration
      policies.

   Phase identifiers SHOULD NOT be composed of characters that cannot be
   represented in US-ASCII, and SHOULD NOT exceed the length of a ROID.
   Servers SHOULD NOT allocate phase identifiers that differ only in the
   casing of the letters.



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   Clients MUST NOT assume any particular identifier syntax, and should
   be able to handle identifiers consisting of numbers, letters and
   punctuation.

2.3.  Status

   All applications follow a predefined lifecycle as defined by the
   server.  This extension defines the following status values that
   servers may use to represent the actions available to the client for
   respective states.

   o  ok - This is the normal status value for an object that has no
      pending operations or prohibitions.

   o  pendingAllocation - The application is pending allocation or
      contention resolution.  All operations are allowed unless the
      relevant statuses are set by the server.

   o  pendingValidation - The application is pending non-mechanical
      validation.  All operations are allowed unless the relevant
      statuses are set by the server.

   o  deleteProhibited - Requests to delete the application MUST be
      rejected.

   o  updateAuthInfoProhibited - Requests to modify the authInfo MUST be
      rejected.

   o  updateContactProhibited - Requests to modify the domain contacts
      (admin, billing, tech) MUST be rejected.  Requests to modify the
      registrant contact are allowed.

   o  updateDelegationProhibited - Requests to modify delegation
      information for the domain MUST be rejected.  This includes name
      server and DNSSEC material.

   o  updateRegistrantProhibited - Requests to modify the domain
      registrant MUST be rejected.  Requests to modify the other
      contacts (admin, billing, tech) are allowed.

   o  updateOtherProhibited - Servers may require mechanisms to notify
      clients of the restriction on updating additional data not covered
      by this document.  Servers should include text as a child of the
      status element, describing the attributes that may not be
      modified.






Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


2.4.  Domain Attributes

   An application must not have subordinate host objects.  Host objects
   may be registered following the allocation of the domain object.

   The domain object must not have creation, update, expiration, or
   transfer dates.  The domain creation date will be set upon
   allocation, of the application and the expiration date will be set
   upon a multiple of periods from the aforementioned creation date.
   The domain object will not have a last updated or transferred date.

   The domain object must not have creating or updating client
   information.

   The domain object will have no status information.  The application
   status describes the state of the application until registration of
   the domain object.  Servers MAY provide the pendingCreate status,
   however clients MUST NOT depend on it being included in response to
   the <info> command.


3.  EPP Command Mapping

   A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
   in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730].  The command
   mappings described here are specifically for use in the Domain Name
   Application Extension.

3.1.  EPP Query Commands

   EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check>
   to determine if an object is known to the server, <info> to retrieve
   detailed information associated with an object, and <transfer> to
   retrieve object transfer status information.

3.1.1.  EPP <check> Command

   This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <check>
   command described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731].  No
   additional elements are defined for the EPP <check> response.

   The EPP <check> command is used to determine if an object can be
   provisioned within a repository.  Domain names may be made available
   only in unique application phases, whilst remaining unavailable for
   registration in concurrent application or registration phases.  In
   addition to the elements expressed in the <domain:check>, the command
   is extended with an <app:check> element that contains the following
   child elements:



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   o  phase: the identifier of the phase to which domain name
      availability should be determined.

   Example <check> Command for an Application Phase

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <check>
         <check xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>xn--somename.tld</name>
           <name>xn--anothername.tld</name>
           <name>abc.tld</name>
         </check>
       </check>
       <extension>
         <check xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <phase>new-IDN-table-release</phase>
         </check>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>

3.1.2.  EPP <info> Command

   This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <info> command
   and response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731].

   The EPP <info> command is used to retrieve information on an
   application for a domain name.  The application identifier returned
   in the create response (Section 3.2.1) is used for retrieving
   information for a launch application.  In addition to the elements
   expressed in the <domain:info>, the command is extended with an <app:
   info> element that contains the following child elements:

   o  id - the identifier of the application














Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   Example <info> Command that identifies a specific Application

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <info>
         <info xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
         </info>
       </info>
       <extension>
         <info xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <id>3F2504E0-4F89-11D3-9A0C-0305E82C3301</id>
         </info>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>

   When an <info> command has been successfully processed, the <resData>
   element contains the <domain:infData> as described in RFC 5731,
   however with restrictions on elements as described in the Domain
   Attributes (Section 2.4) section.  In addition, the response is
   extended with an <app:infData> element containing the following child
   elements (Note that <app:infData> element MAY be returned by a server
   for a domain object that was created as the result of a successful
   application as well):

   o  One <id> element containing the application identifier.

   o  One <phase> element containing the phase in which the application
      is submitted.

   o  One or more <status> elements describing the status of the
      application.

   o  One <crDate> element that contains the date of application
      creation.

   o  One optional <upDate> element that contains the date and time of
      the most recent application modification.










Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   Example <info> Response for an Application.

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <response>
       <result code="1000">
         <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
       </result>
       <resData>
         <infData xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
           <roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</roid>
           <registrant>jd1234</registrant>
           <contact type="admin">sh8013</contact>
           <contact type="tech">sh8013</contact>
           <ns>
             <hostObj>ns1.example.com</hostObj>
             <hostObj>ns1.example.net</hostObj>
           </ns>
           <clID>ClientX</clID>
           <authInfo>
             <pw>2fooBAR</pw>
           </authInfo>
         </infData>
       </resData>
       <extension>
         <infData xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <id>3F2504E0-4F89-11D3-9A0C-0305E82C3301</id>
           <phase>landrush</phase>
           <status s="updateRegistrantProhibited" />
           <crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</crDate>
           <upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</upDate>
         </infData>
       </extension>
       <trID>
         <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
         <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
       </trID>
     </response>
   </epp>

3.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <transfer>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].





Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


3.2.  EPP Transform Commands

   EPP provides five commands to transform objects: <create> to create
   an instance of an object, <delete> to delete an instance of an
   object, <renew> to extend the validity period of an object,
   <transfer> to manage object sponsorship changes, and <update> to
   change information associated with an object.

3.2.1.  EPP <create> Command

   This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <create>
   command and response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].

   The EPP <create> command is used to provision an object within a
   repository.  A domain name application may be provisioned by
   specifying the phase in which the application is to be processed.

   In addition to the elements expressed in the <domain:create>, the
   command is extended with an <app:create> element containing the
   following child elements:

   o  phase: the identifier of the phase to which a domain name
      application is being submitted.



























Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   Example <create> Command for an Application

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <create>
         <create xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
           <ns>
             <hostObj>ns1.example.net</hostObj>
             <hostObj>ns2.example.net</hostObj>
           </ns>
           <registrant>jd1234</registrant>
           <contact type="admin">sh8013</contact>
           <contact type="tech">sh8013</contact>
           <authInfo>
             <pw>2fooBAR</pw>
           </authInfo>
         </create>
       </create>
       <extension>
         <create xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <phase>landrush</phase>
         </create>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>

   When a <create> command has been processed successfully, the EPP
   <resData> element MUST NOT include the <domain:creData> response
   described in RFC5731.  Instead the EPP <resData> element MUST contain
   an <app:creData> element that contains the following child elements:

   o  An <id> element ..

   o  A <crDate> element that contains the date and time of application
      object creation.













Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   Example <create> Response for an Application

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <response>
       <result code="1000">
         <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
       </result>
       <resData>
         <creData xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <id>3F2504E0-4F89-11D3-9A0C-0305E82C3301</id>
           <crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</crDate>
         </creData>
       </resData>
       <trID>
         <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
         <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
       </trID>
     </response>
   </epp>

3.2.2.  EPP <delete> Command

   This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <delete>
   command described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731].  No
   additional elements are defined for the EPP <delete> response.

   The delete command is extended to allow for the deletion of an
   application.  In addition to the elements expressed in the <domain:
   delete>, the command is extended with a <app:delete> element that
   contains the following child elements:

   o  id: the identifier of application to be deleted.


















Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   Example <delete> Command to Delete an Application

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <delete>
         <delete xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
         </delete>
       </delete>
       <extension>
         <delete xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <id>3F2504E0-4F89-11D3-9A0C-0305E82C3301</id>
         </delete>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>

3.2.3.  EPP <renew> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <renew>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].

3.2.4.  EPP <transfer> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <transfer>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].

3.2.5.  EPP <update> Command

   This extension defines additional elements for the EPP <update>
   command described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731].  No
   additional elements are defined for the EPP <update> response.

   The update command is extended to allow for the modification of an
   application.  In addition to the elements expressed in the <domain:
   update>, the command is extended with a <app:update> element that
   contains the following child elements:

   o  id: the identifier of application to be updated.








Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


   Example <update> Command to change Administrative Contacts for an
   Application

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <update>
         <update xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
           <add>
             <contact type="admin">jd1234</contact>
           </add>
           <rem>
             <contact type="admin">sh8013</contact>
           </rem>
         </update>
       </update>
       <extension>
         <update xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <id>3F2504E0-4F89-11D3-9A0C-0305E82C3301</id>
         </update>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>


4.  Formal Syntax

   An EPP object mapping is specified in XML Schema notation.  The
   formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation of
   the object mapping, suitable for automated validation of EPP XML
   instances.

   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <schema targetNamespace="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0"
     xmlns:app="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0"
     xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
     elementFormDefault="qualified">

     <!-- Child elements found in EPP commands. -->
     <element name="check" type="app:phaseType" />
     <element name="create" type="app:phaseType" />
     <element name="delete" type="app:idType" />
     <element name="info" type="app:idType" />
     <element name="update" type="app:idType" />

     <complexType name="phaseType">



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


       <sequence>
         <element name="phase" type="token" />
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <complexType name="idType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="id" type="token" />
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <!-- Child elements found in EPP responses. -->
     <element name="creData" type="app:creDataType" />
     <element name="infData" type="app:infDataType" />

     <complexType name="creDataType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="id" type="token" />
         <element name="crDate" type="dateTime" minOccurs="0" />
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <complexType name="infDataType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="id" type="token" />
         <element name="phase" type="token" />
         <element name="status" type="app:statusType"
           maxOccurs="unbounded" />
         <element name="crDate" type="dateTime" />
         <element name="upDate" type="dateTime" minOccurs="0" />
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <complexType name="statusType">
       <simpleContent>
         <extension base="normalizedString">
           <attribute name="s" type="app:statusValueType"
             use="required" />
         </extension>
       </simpleContent>
     </complexType>

     <simpleType name="statusValueType">
       <restriction base="token">
         <enumeration value="ok" />
         <enumeration value="deleteProhibited" />
         <enumeration value="pendingAllocation" />
         <enumeration value="pendingValidation" />



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


         <enumeration value="updateAuthInfoProhibited" />
         <enumeration value="updateContactProhibited" />
         <enumeration value="updateDelegationProhibited" />
         <enumeration value="updateRegistrantProhibited" />
         <enumeration value="updateOtherProhibited" />
       </restriction>
     </simpleType>

   </schema>


5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


6.  Security Considerations

   The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any
   security services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730], the EPP
   Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731], and protocol layers used by EPP.  The
   security considerations described in these other specifications also
   apply to this specification.

   Updates to and deletion of an application object, must be restricted
   to clients authorized to perform the said operation on the object.

   Because information contained within an application, or even the mere
   fact that an application exists may be confidential; any attempt to
   operate on an application object by an unauthorized client MUST be
   rejected with an EPP 2303 (object does not exist) or an appropriate
   auhorization error.  Server policy may allow <info> operation with
   filtered output by clients other than the sponsoring client, in which
   case the <domain:infData> and <application:infData> response SHOULD
   be filtered to include only fields that are publicly accessible.


7.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.

   [RFC5731]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, August 2009.




Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       EPP Domain Application Mapping        December 2012


Authors' Addresses

   James Mitchell
   ARI Registry Services
   8/10 Queens Road
   Melbourne, Victoria  3004
   AU

   Phone: +61 3 9866 3710
   Email: [email protected]
   URI:   www.ariservices.com


   Chris Wright
   ARI Registry Services
   8/10 Queens Road
   Melbourne, Victoria  3004
   AU

   Phone: +61 3 9866 3710
   Email: [email protected]
   URI:   www.ariservices.com





























Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 17]

draft-rbp-tmch-epp-mapping-01.txt (text/plain, 26.4 KB)


Internet Engineering Task Force                              J. Mitchell
Internet-Draft                                                 C. Wright
Intended status: Informational                     ARI Registry Services
Expires: June 4, 2013                                      December 2012


      Trademark Clearinghouse Extension Mapping for the Extensible
                      Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
                     draft-rbp-tmch-epp-mapping-01

Abstract

   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for the provisioning of domain names during the
   term of rights protection mechanism phases involving the trademark
   clearinghouse.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Trademark Clearinghouse  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Sunrise  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Trademark Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.2.1.  Claims Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.2.2.  Claims Acknowledgment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Trademark Claims 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Object Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Signed Mark Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Claims Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Notice Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  Source Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.5.  Dates and Times  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  EPP Command Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.1.  EPP <check> Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.2.  EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.1.  EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
         4.2.1.1.  Sunrise Domain Create  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
         4.2.1.2.  TM Claims Domain Create  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.2.  EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.3.  EPP <renew> Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.4.  EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.5.  EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Formal Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  Appendix A - TMCH Sunrise Domain Application
                Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14













Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document describes extensions to the Extensible Provisioning
   Protocol (EPP) for the operation of domain name registries for the
   duration of the implementation of rights protection mechanisms that
   integrate with the trademark clearinghouse.

   This document decouples the sunrise and trademark claims processes
   from the domain name allocation processes used by the registry.  The
   EPP Domain Application Mapping [RBP-APP-1.0] should be considered by
   registries that require a process allowing multiple applications for
   one domain name.  An example illustrating its use is described in
   Appendix A (Appendix A).

   Readers should be familiar with trademark clearinghouse processes and
   their implications on registries and the registration process.  TODO:
   Link to http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse.

1.1.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   "tmch-1.0" is used as an abbreviation for
   "urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0".  The XML namespace prefix "tmch" is
   used, but implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead employ a
   proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to interpret and
   output the XML documents.


2.  Trademark Clearinghouse

   The trademark clearinghouse provides several services required by
   server operators during the launch phases of new TLD registries.
   Eligible rights holders vetted by the trademark clearinghouse, are
   given priority in applications for domain names during the sunrise
   period, and potential registrants are notified of an eligible mark
   matching their domain name during the trademark claims period.

2.1.  Sunrise

   Sunrise is the process by which new TLDs will enable rights holders
   to have first access to names within a TLD.  Only appropriately
   qualified rights holders are allowed to participate in Sunrise.  The
   scope of qualification is defined in ICANN policy and outside this
   specification.  This specification simply details the mechanism by
   which this qualification is communicated with the TLD operator using



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


   the EPP protocol.

   The TMCH is responsible for the generation of Signed Mark Data (SMD)
   files for mark holders that meet the requirements to participate in a
   sunrise as specified in the guidebook.  This extension makes no
   attempt to define the format of the SMD, instead provides only a
   mechanism for its transport from registrars to registries.  It is
   expected that the trademark clearinghouse provider will publish the
   format of the SMD.

   This process requires extension to the <create> command as described
   below.  Requests for registration of a domain name without signed
   mark data MUST be rejected during the sunrise period.

2.2.  Trademark Claims

   Trademark Claims refers to the period during which potential
   registrants must acknowledge a notice describing one or more entities
   that have trademarks for the domain names to be registered.  Two
   extensions are required to facilitate this process; the Claims Check
   is used to determine existence of a claim, and Claims Acknowledgement
   to provide evidence of acceptance of the claim on registration.

2.2.1.  Claims Check

   This process requires extension to the <check> command and response
   as described below.  A check response during this stage indicates
   whether a claim exists, and includes the relevant claims key used by
   the client for retrieval of claims information from the trademark
   clearinghouse.

2.2.2.  Claims Acknowledgment

   This process requires extension to the <create> command as described
   below.  Registrations for domain names matching a claim MUST be
   rejected unless the extension acknowledgement is provided.

2.3.  Trademark Claims 2

   Trademark Claims 2 is a variation to the Trademark Claims period
   during which potential registrants are displayed a generic notice
   describing existence of a trademark covering the given domain name.

   This process requires extension to the <check> command as described
   below.  A check response during this stage will indicate a claim
   exists, however no claim key will be provided.





Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


3.  Object Attributes

   This extension adds additional elements to the EPP Domain Name
   Mapping [RFC5731].  Only those new elements are described here.

3.1.  Signed Mark Data

   Signed mark data (SMD) is the information published by the trademark
   clearinghouse as proof of validation and applicability for
   participation in the sunrise phase, and signed to verify
   authenticity.

   This specification assumes the mark data will be provided by the
   trademark clearinghouse will be an XML document with XML Signatures
   for authenticity.  This extension requires the SMD be transmitted to
   the server encoded using Base64 for two reasons:

   o  XML Signature validation is sensitive to changes in whitespace and
      formatting and a signed document may become invalid if treated as
      text, such as in emails or log files.

   o  It is known that registry operators have implemented their EPP XML
      processing using SAX parsers, however signature validation
      libraries require a DOM parser.  This specification should not
      require server operators change their XML parser.

3.2.  Claims Key

   The claims key is an identifier returned by the server in response to
   a <tmch:check> command and used for the lookup of claims information
   in the trademark clearinghouse.  Clients SHOULD NOT place any
   restrictions on the form and syntax of the claims key.

3.3.  Notice Identifier

   The notice identifier is obtained by the client requesting the claims
   notice from the trademark clearinghouse using the aforementioned
   claims key.  The notice identifier is a unique identifier assigned by
   the TMCH to each Trademark Claims notice it generates.  Severs and
   clients SHOULD NOT place any restrictions on the form and syntax of
   the claims key.

3.4.  Source Address

   Clients are required to provide the source address of the entity that
   accepted the trademark claims notice.  This information SHOULD take
   the form of an internet address.  The syntax for IPv4 addresses
   SHOULD conform to [RFC0791].  The syntax for IPv6 addresses SHOULD



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


   conform to [RFC5952].

3.5.  Dates and Times

   Date and time attribute values MUST be represented in Universal
   Coordinated Time (UTC) using the Gregorian calendar.  The extended
   date-time form using upper case "T" and "Z" characters defined in
   [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] MUST be used to represent date-time
   values, as XML Schema does not support truncated date-time forms or
   lower case "T" and "Z" characters.


4.  EPP Command Mapping

   A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found
   in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730].  The command
   mappings described here are specifically for use in the Trademark
   Clearinghouse Extension.

4.1.  EPP Query Commands

   EPP provides three commands to retrieve object information: <check>
   to determine if an object is known to the server, <info> to retrieve
   detailed information associated with an object, and <transfer> to
   retrieve object transfer status information.

4.1.1.  EPP <check> Command

   This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <check>
   command and response to be used in conjunction with the EPP Domain
   Name Mapping [RFC5731].

   To enable clients to identify domain names that are subject to claims
   processing, the <domain:check> command is extended with a <tmch:
   check> element, which signals a client's intention to retrieve claims
   information.















Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


   Example <check> command requesting claims information

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <check>
         <check xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
         </check>
       </check>
       <extension>
         <check xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0" />
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>

   When a <check> command containing the <tmch:check> element has been
   processed successfully, the server MUST NOT respond with the <domain:
   chkData> element described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731].
   Instead, servers must respond with a <tmch:chkData> element that
   contains one <tmch:cd> element for each domain name present in the
   command.  The <tmch:cd> element contains the following child
   elements:

   o  A <tmch:name> element containing a domain name from the
      corresponding command.  The order and composition of domain names
      in the response MUST be the same as the order and composition of
      domain names provided in the command, with exception to
      transformations required of validating XML parsers.  A mandatory
      "exists" attribute describes whether a claim exists for this name.

   o  A <tmch:key> element containing the claims key used for retrieval
      of the claims data.  This element MUST be present during the
      Trademark Claims period where the <tmch:name> element's "exists"
      attribute evaluates to true.















Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


   Example <check> response during the trademark claims period

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <response>
       <result code="1000">
         <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
       </result>
       <resData>
         <chkData xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0">
           <cd>
             <name exists="1">example.tld</name>
             <key>CLAIM_KEY</key>
           </cd>
         </chkData>
       </resData>
       <trID>
         <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
         <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
       </trID>
     </response>
   </epp>

   Example <check> response during the claims 2 period

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <response>
       <result code="1000">
         <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
       </result>
       <resData>
         <chkData xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0">
           <cd>
             <name exists="1">example.tld</name>
           </cd>
         </chkData>
       </resData>
       <trID>
         <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
         <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
       </trID>
     </response>
   </epp>







Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


4.1.2.  EPP <info> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <info>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].

4.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <transfer>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].

4.2.  EPP Transform Commands

   EPP provides five commands to transform objects: <create> to create
   an instance of an object, <delete> to delete an instance of an
   object, <renew> to extend the validity period of an object,
   <transfer> to manage object sponsorship changes, and <update> to
   change information associated with an object.

4.2.1.  EPP <create> Command

   There are two forms of the extension to the EPP <create> command that
   are dependent on the whether the server is operating a sunrise or TM
   claims process.  Both forms are described below.

4.2.1.1.  Sunrise Domain Create

   The Sunrise Create extension to the EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731]
   includes the verifiable trademark information that the server uses to
   match against the domain name to authorize the domain create.

   This extension defines additional elements to be sent to the server
   for domain creates.  In addition to the normal <domain:create>, the
   command contains a <tmch:create> element that contains the following
   child elements:

   o  A <tmch:smd> element that contains the base-64 encoded signed mark
      data.












Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


   Example <create> during the sunrise period.

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <create>
         <create xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
           <registrant>jd1234</registrant>
           <contact type="admin">sh8013</contact>
           <contact type="tech">sh8013</contact>
           <authInfo>
             <pw>2fooBAR</pw>
           </authInfo>
         </create>
       </create>
       <extension>
         <create xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0">
           <smd>VGhpcyBpcyBhIHBsYWNlaG9sZGVyIGZvciBkYXRhIHByb3Z
             pZGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBUcmFkZW1hcmsgQ2xlYXJpbmdob3VzZQo=
           </smd>
         </create>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>

4.2.1.2.  TM Claims Domain Create

   The Claims Create extension to the EPP Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731]
   includes the information related to the acceptance of the claims
   notice for the TM Claims period.

   This extension defines additional elements to be sent to the server
   for domain creates.  In addition to the normal <domain:create>, the
   command contains a <tmch:create> element that contains the following
   child elements:

   o  A <tmch:noticeID> element that contains the unique notice
      identifier generated by the Claims Notice Information Service
      (CNIS).

   o  A <generated> element that contains the date and time that the
      claims notice was generated.

   o  A <accepted> element that contains the date and time that the
      claims notice was accepted.




Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


   o  A <source> element that contains the source information of the
      consumer that was displayed or that accepted the claims notice,
      for example the consumer's IP address.

   Example create during the TM Claims period.

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <create>
         <create xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
           <registrant>jd1234</registrant>
           <contact type="admin">sh8013</contact>
           <contact type="tech">sh8013</contact>
           <authInfo>
             <pw>2fooBAR</pw>
           </authInfo>
         </create>
       </create>
       <extension>
         <create xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0">
           <noticeID>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</noticeID>
           <generated>2012-06-19T09:00:00.0Z</generated>
           <accepted>2012-06-19T09:00:10.0Z</accepted>
           <source>192.0.2.29</source>
         </create>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>

4.2.2.  EPP <delete> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <delete>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].

4.2.3.  EPP <renew> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <renew>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].

4.2.4.  EPP <transfer> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <transfer>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


   [RFC5731].

4.2.5.  EPP <update> Command

   This extension does not define any extension to the EPP <update>
   command or response described in the EPP Domain Name Mapping
   [RFC5731].


5.  Formal Syntax

   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <schema targetNamespace="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0"
     xmlns:tmch="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0"
     xmlns:eppcom="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"
     xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
     elementFormDefault="qualified">

     <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0" />

     <!-- Custom command extensions -->
     <element name="check" />
     <element name="create" type="tmch:createType" />

     <complexType name="createType">
       <choice>
         <element name="smd" type="base64Binary" />
         <sequence>
           <element name="noticeID" type="token" />
           <element name="generated" type="dateTime" />
           <element name="accepted" type="dateTime" />
           <element name="source" type="token" />
         </sequence>
       </choice>
     </complexType>

     <!-- Custom response extensions for checkbis extension -->
     <element name="chkData" type="tmch:chkDataType" />

     <complexType name="chkDataType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="cd" type="tmch:checkType"
           maxOccurs="unbounded" />
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <complexType name="checkType">
       <sequence>



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


         <element name="name" type="tmch:checkNameType" />
         <element name="key" type="normalizedString" minOccurs="0" />
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <complexType name="checkNameType">
       <simpleContent>
         <extension base="eppcom:labelType">
           <attribute name="exists" type="boolean" use="required" />
         </extension>
       </simpleContent>
     </complexType>

   </schema>


6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


7.  Security Considerations

   The mapping extensions described in this document do not provide any
   security services beyond those described by EPP [RFC5730], the EPP
   Domain Name Mapping [RFC5731], and protocol layers used by EPP.  The
   security considerations described in these other specifications apply
   to this specification as well.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.

   [RFC5731]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, August 2009.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RBP-APP-1.0]
              Mitchell, J. and C. Wright, "Domain Name Application
              Extension Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol



Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


              (EPP)", December 2012.


Appendix A.  Appendix A - TMCH Sunrise Domain Application Example

   Example showing creating an application for a domain name during the
   sunrise period.  Additional extensions, such as IDN may be included
   as required by the server.

   <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
   <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
     <command>
       <create>
         <create xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
           <name>example.tld</name>
           <ns>
             <hostObj>ns1.example.net</hostObj>
             <hostObj>ns2.example.net</hostObj>
           </ns>
           <registrant>jd1234</registrant>
           <contact type="admin">sh8013</contact>
           <contact type="tech">sh8013</contact>
           <authInfo>
             <pw>2fooBAR</pw>
           </authInfo>
         </create>
       </create>
       <extension>
         <create xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:application-1.0">
           <phase>tmch-sunrise</phase>
         </create>
         <create xmlns="urn:rbp:params:xml:ns:tmch-1.0">
           <smd>VGhpcyBpcyBhIHBsYWNlaG9sZGVyIGZvciBkYXRhIHByb3Z
             pZGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBUcmFkZW1hcmsgQ2xlYXJpbmdob3VzZQo=
           </smd>
         </create>
       </extension>
       <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
     </command>
   </epp>











Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     EPP Trademark Clearinghouse Mapping     December 2012


Authors' Addresses

   James Mitchell
   ARI Registry Services
   8/10 Queens Road
   Melbourne, Victoria  3004
   AU

   Phone: +61 3 9866 3710
   Email: [email protected]
   URI:   www.ariservices.com


   Chris Wright
   ARI Registry Services
   8/10 Queens Road
   Melbourne, Victoria  3004
   AU

   Phone: +61 3 9866 3710
   Email: [email protected]
   URI:   www.ariservices.com





























Mitchell & Wright         Expires June 4, 2013                 [Page 15]

lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.