Registration Protocols Extensions U. Wisser Internet-Draft The Swedish Internet Foundation Intended status: Standards Track 18 June 2021 Expires: 20 December 2021 Registry Lock Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) draft-wisser-registrylock-03 Abstract This extensions defines an additional protective layer for changes to domain [RFC5731], host xref target="RFC5732" format="default"/> and contact [RFC5733] objects managed through EPP. EPP allows changes to objects only by the sponsoring client. EPP objects are usually managed by the sponsoring client on behalf of the sponsoring clients customers. All of these interactions are ususally fully automated. In case of a system breach, there is no protection in EPP to changes to any object by the intruder. This extension defines a protective layer that aims to break automated changes and work flows by requiring manual intervention by the sponsoring client or it's customers. xxx 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 https://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 20 December 2021. Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Object Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Password Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Out-of-band Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Command Execution Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Locking Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1.1. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.2. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.3. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.3. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.4. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.5. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. Registry Lock Extension Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1. Introduction This extensions defines an additional protective layer for changes to domain [RFC5731], host [RFC5732] and contact [RFC5733] objects managed through EPP. EPP allows changes to objects only by the sponsoring client. EPP objects are usually managed by the sponsoring client on behalf of the sponsoring clients customers. All of these interactions are ususally fully automated. In case of a system breach, there is no protection in EPP to changes to any object by the intruder. This extension defines a protective layer that aims to break automated changes and work flows by requiring manual intervention by the sponsoring client or it's customers. 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]. XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the character case presented in order to develop a conforming implementation. In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol. "regLock" is used as an abbreviation for "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0". The XML namespace prefix "reglock" 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 Protection This extension provides additional protection to objects managed by a sponsoring client on behalf of a registrant. This is achieved by requiring additional authorization for transform commands. Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 Solutions can be broadly categorized as in-band or out-of-band authorizations. Where in-band authorizations would provide authorization through EPP. Whereas out-of-band solutions provide authorization by some other means. * either by temporarily unlocking the object for changes * or by authorizing pending changes after they have been submitted to the server. 2.1. Password Authorization In-band authorization uses the authorization possibilities provided by EPP Standards [RFC5730], [RFC5731], [RFC5732] and [RFC5733]. registryLock aims to break automatic changes to registry objects. A registry implementing password authorization must make sure to secure authorization in a way that breaks automation and requires human interaction. One such scheme, although currently none is defined for EPP, could be one time passwords. With password authorization temporary unlock MUST not be implemented. Every command could be authorized by including the credentials in the command. 2.2. Out-of-band Authorization Out-of-band Authorization is not covered in this document. By definition out-of-band authorization will not use EPP and therefore is not subject of consideration here. Registries must provide means for the registrar or registrant to temporarily unlock the domain, to remove registry lock or ro authorize changes submitted to the server through some means than EPP. Any object that is locked with out-of-band authorization MUST reject password authorization with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 3. Any object that is locked with password authorization MUST reject out-of-band authorization with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 3. 2.3. Command Execution Restrictions Once an object has Registry Lock enabled all transform commands except MUST only be executed if Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 * proper authorization is provided or * the object is temporarily unlocked Otherwise the command MUST be rejected with EPP result code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 3. The following EPP flags [RFC5731], [RFC5732], [RFC5733] must be set. * serverDeleteProhibited * serverTransferProhibited * serverUpdateProhibited If the object is unlocked the flags SHOULD be cleared and the server should answer to an request with the according information. However, if the object is only temporarily unlocked, only the serverUpdateProhibited flag SHOULD be cleared, but in an response the server should still indicate that the object is under registry lock. OPEN QUESTION: If a domain is under registry lock, can a subordinate host be updated? * I got one "no" answer - hosts might not be owned by domain owner * In .se/.nu all subordinary hosts are automatically owned by the domain owner and locked if the domain is locked. We need more input! 3. Object Attributes 3.1. Locking Status Locking Status information indicates if the additional protection of Registry Lock is enabled for an object. Boolean values MUST be represented in the XML Schema format described in Part 2 of the W3C XML Schema recommendation [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]. 4. EPP Command Mapping A detailed description of the EPP syntax and semantics can be found in the EPP core protocol specification [RFC5730]. 4.1. EPP Query Commands Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 4.1.1. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command or response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. 4.1.2. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731], host mapping [RFC5732] or contact mapping [RFC5733] However, additional elements are defined for the response. When an command has been processed successfully, the EPP element MUST contain child elements as described in the EPP object mappings. In addition, the EPP element SHOULD contain a child element that identifies the extension namespace the epp client has indicated support for the extension in the command. The element contains the following child elements: * Exactly one element that indicates if Registry Lock is enabled for the object. * An OPTIONAL element if the object currently can be changed by the sponsoring client. The field indicates the time stamp when the lock will become active again. Example Response, domain not locked Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: S: S: S: 0 S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54322-XYZ S: S: S: Example Response, domain locked Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: S: S: S: 1 S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54322-XYZ S: S: S: Example Response, domain temporary unlocked Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: S: S: S: 1 S: 20000101T000000+0000 S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54322-XYZ S: S: S: 4.1.3. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command or response described in the EPP mapping [RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. 4.2. EPP Transform Commands 4.2.1. EPP Command This extension is intended to be used within the scope of the object creation. It does not define a command of its own. This extension adds elements to both the EPP command and response as described in the EPP [RFC5730]. When submitting a command to the server, the client MAY include in the element a element to create the domain in a locked state. The extension includes the following child element: Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 * A element defining the mechanism of how the domain can be unlocked. Valid values are "outofband" in order to unlock the domain outside of EPP or "password" to unlock the domain using a password. * An optional element that keeps the domain temporarily unlocked, stating the time stamp when the lock should become active. When the command has been processed successfully, and the client requested the creation of a locked domain, the server MUST include in the section of the EPP response a element that contains the following child element: * A element stating the locked state as being set. * An optional element if the domain has been temporarily unlocked, stating the time stamp when the lock will become active. Example command C: C: C: C: C: C: ns1.example.com C: 192.0.2.2 C: 192.0.2.29 C: 1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A C: C: C: C: C: outofband C: C: C: ABC-12345 C: C: Example response Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: 1 S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: 4.2.2. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command or response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. If the object is locked, the EPP command MUST be rejected with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 3. See Section 2.3 4.2.3. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command or response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. Execution of the EPP command is not restricted by this extension. 4.2.4. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command or response described in the EPP mappings [RFC5731], [RFC5732] or [RFC5733]. If the object is locked, the EPP command MUST be rejected with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 3. See Section 2.3 Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 4.2.5. EPP Command This extension adds elements to both the EPP command and response as described in [RFC5730]. If the object is not locked, the command can be used to lock the object, similarly to the command. If the object is locked, the server MUST NOT except any command to fully unlock the object. Only temporarily unlocking is acceptable. If the object is locked the server can handle commands in two ways * rejecting the command with EPP response code 1001 "Command completed successfully; action pending" [RFC5730] section 3 * answering with EPP response code 2201 "Authorization error" [RFC5730] section 3 If the object is temporarily unlocked only commands are allowed. and are explicitly not allowed. For the time of the temporary unlock the serverUpdateProhibited status should be cleared. Registries can narrow down allowed changes when a domain is locked. Registries could prohobit changes of registrant for doamins even if the domain is temporatily unlocked or password authorization is given. When the > command has been processed successfully, and the client included the regLock extension in the update request, the server MUST include in the section of the EPP response a element that contains the following child elements: * A element stating the locked state as being set. * An optional element if the domain has been temporarily unlocked, stating the time stamp when the lock will become active again. Example command, locking domain Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 C: C: C: C: C: C: example.com C: C: C: C: C: outofband C: C: C: ABC-12345 C: C: Example response S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: 1 S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: Example command, for temporary unlock of domain Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 13] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 C: C: C: C: C: C: example.com C: C: C: C: C: 20000101T000000+0000 C: C: C: ABC-12345 C: C: Example response, for temporary unlock of domain S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: 1 S: 20000101T000000+0000 S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: Example response, for failure of temporary unlock of domain Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 14] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 S: S: S: S: S: Authorization error S: S: S: S: 1 S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: 5. Formal Syntax One schema is presented here that is the EPP Registry Lock Extension schema. The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation of the object mapping suitable for automated validation of EPP XML instances. The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration purposes. 5.1. Registry Lock Extension Schema BEGIN Registry Lock Extension to the Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0 Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 15] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 16] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 END 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. XML Namespace This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI assignment is requested of IANA: Registration request for the registryLock namespace: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:registryLock-1.0 Registrant Contact: IESG XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. Registration request for the registryLock XML schema: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:epp:registryLock-1.0 Registrant Contact: IESG XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document. 6.2. EPP Extension Registry The EPP extension described in this document should be registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in [RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows: Name of Extension: "Registry Lock Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" Document status: Standards Track Reference: (insert reference to RFC version of this document) Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, TLDs: Any IPR Disclosure: None Status: Active Notes: None Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 17] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 7. Implementation Status Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. Implemented by .SE since 2019. 8. Security Considerations The security properties of EPP from [RFC5730] are preserved. This extensions introduces an additional security layer for changes of objects managed through EPP. The overall security of these measures depends on policies and procedures not covered in this document. Registry should whenevr possible NOT implement password authorization. Once the password is known to the EPP client and number of changes could be authorized with it. Therefore a registry implementing password authorization MUST take precautions so that every update needs human interaction. 9. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback and suggestions: 10. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, . [RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009, . Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 18] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 [RFC5732] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732, August 2009, . [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, August 2009, . [RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451, February 2015, . [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, . [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, 28 October 2004, . Appendix A. Change History A.1. Change from 00 to 01 1. Corrected information for the command. 2. Minor fixes in wording. 3. Introduces resData element. A.2. Change from 01 to 02 1. Multiple spelling errors fixed. 2. Moved response from resData to extension part of the EPP response. 3. Clarification of password and out-of-band usage. 4. Updated XML schema and examples 5. Changed security considerations for password authorization. 6. Added unlockUntil to create command 7. Forbid temporarily unlock for password authorization. A.3. Change from 02 to 03 1. Fix list styles for better readability 2. Fix reference to W3C XML Schema Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 19] Internet-Draft registryLock June 2021 Author's Address Ulrich Wisser The Swedish Internet Foundation Box 92073 SE-12007 Stockholm Sweden Email: ulrich@wisser.se URI: https://www.internetstiftelsen.se Wisser Expires 20 December 2021 [Page 20]