Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-00 Feedback

["Gould, James" <[e-mail]>]

Antoin,

My feedback is below.

--

JG



James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[e-mail]

703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com



On 4/28/14, 5:58 AM, "Antoin Verschuren" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

op 25-04-14 15:23, Gould, James schreef:
I have not received any feedback publicly or privately on the
options in the message below.  Any thoughts on this?

Hi James,

First, thank you for your feedback and extensive suggestions.
I did receive private feedback to your suggestions, but was not able
to digest it yet due to a lack of time, sorry about that. I've asked
the commenter to post on-list, but have not been able to get back on that.

The major comments to your suggestions as I understand them were:

<command>

    <update>

This suggest an update of a domain object in the registry DB, but a
keyrelay does not update anything in the DB as it is not submitted by
the registrar of record. A keyrelay only reads object information and
uses that to relay data.

The Key Relay is associated with the domain name.  A Key Relay Command, by overriding the update with a new verb (“Key Relay”), does persist information to the registry database to relay to the losing hosting provider in the form of a poll message.  Using the Command-Response Extension, you're defining a new command verb, similar to what is done with a protocol extension, but following the pattern that has been followed with other extensions like the RGP extension (e.g. restore command).



<resData>

The authors can live with the suggested changes to the response.
You'll get the domain info and key info in the response.

<command>

   <create>

     <keyrelay:create>

This is where both the authors and some others have problems with. A
create suggests you're creating an object in the registry DB, but we
don't. One of the requirements for keyrelay was that the DB would be
left unharmed, no special tables or attributes for keyrelay.

I believe you are adding more requirements around an object extension than exists.  If the Key Relay was an object extension, you are creating a Key Relay message to the losing hosting provider.  This is similar to sending an e-mail by creating an e-mail message and sending it to your SMTP server.  You are persisting / creating information in the registry database in the form of a poll message in this instance.


I understand the difference between the message syntax and the actual
process flow, but this does seem to confuse people. Are there any
other extensions that use a create or update syntax when there is no
authorization or actual object change? Is it clear enough in the EPP
RFC's that there is this separation of syntax and meaning? RFC 5730
section 2.9 states by definition that <create> and <update> actually
change objects. The authors feel keyrelay does not fit in any of the
current protocol commands. It's not a session management command, not
a query command, and not an object transform command. So keyrelay is
actually a new 4th protocol command type which can best be described
as a communication command.

A object extension does not require support for all of the transform commands.  We have creating custom object extensions that don’t use all or any of the transform commands.  Examples include:

  1.  Suggestion Mapping ( http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/epp-sdk/EPP-Suggestion-Mapping.pdf ) - This is an EPP object extension to support name suggestions in the form of a Name Suggestion object that only supports an info command and response.
  2.  Balance Mapping ( http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/epp-balance-mapping.pdf ) - This is an EPP object extension to support getting the balance, available credit, and credit limit information in the form of a Balance object that only supports an info command and response.
  3.  WhoWas Mapping ( http://www.verisigninc.com/assets/epp-whowas-mapping.pdf ) - This is an EPP object extension to support getting history information (e.g. domain, host, contact) information in the form of a WhoWas object that support an info command and response.

Another comment was about the double use of the domain name in the
message:

        <domain:name>example.org</domain:name>
        .....
        <keyrelay:name>example.org</keyrelay:name>

which seemed unnessecary.

In the case of a Key Relay object extension, you can use the element <keyrelay:domainName> in place of the shorter form <keyrelay:name>, but the description of the element is the same in being the domain name that the Key Relay is associated with.


I'll ask my co-authors to follow up on this, but in the mean time, I
would like to hear others comment on the potential violation of RFC
5730 section 2.9 by your suggested syntax on-list.

There is no violation of RFC 5730.  It comes down to whether you are extending the domain object extension in the form of a Command-Response Extension, creating a new object extension for the Key Relay message object, or creating a mix of a protocol extension (command) and an object extension (poll response).



From: <Gould>, James Gould <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>> Date: Thursday, March 13, 2014 at
1:52 PM To: Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>> Subject: Re: [eppext]
draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-00 Feedback
Antoin,
Thanks for the detailed explanation.  The choice of which form of
EPP extension to use (protocol, object, command-response) does not
change the process flow at all, but simply determines the syntax
of the key relay commands and responses.  Technically
draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay uses both the protocol extension for
the command and the object extension for the poll response.  My
recommendation is to get down to one type of extension for the
specification.   The best way to describe the use of the object
and command-response extensions is to provide some examples, which
I do below:
*Command-Response Extension:*
*Key Relay Command* as extension to empty domain update similar to
the restore command in RFC 3915.  To note this is a new verb that
is not mixed with the update from a feature and authorization
perspective.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1"
xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
xmlns:keyrelay="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyrelay-1.0">
<command>
<update>
<domain:update>
<domain:name>example.org</domain:name>
</domain:update>
</update>
<extension>
<keyrelay:keyrelay>
<keyrelay:name>example.org</keyrelay:name>
<keyrelay:keyData>
<secDNS:flags>256</secDNS:flags>
<secDNS:protocol>3</secDNS:protocol>
<secDNS:alg>8</secDNS:alg>
<secDNS:pubKey>cmlraXN0aGViZXN0</secDNS:pubKey>
</keyrelay:keyData>
<keyrelay:authInfo>
<domain:pw>JnSdBAZSxxzJ</domain:pw>
</keyrelay:authInfo>
<keyrelay:expiry>
<keyrelay:relative>P1M13D</keyrelay:relative>
</keyrelay:expiry>
</keyrelay:keyrelay>
</extension>
<clTRID>ABC-12345-XYZ</clTRID>
</command>
</epp>
*Key Relay Poll Response* as an extension to the domain info
response.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1"
xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
xmlns:keyrelay="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyrelay-1.0">
<response>
<result code="1301">
<msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
</result>
<msgQ count="5" id="12345">
<qDate>1999-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate>
<msg>Key Relay action completed successfully.</msg>
</msgQ>
<resData>
<domain:infData
xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
<domain:name>example.org</domain:name>
<domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
<domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
</domain:infData>
</resData>
<extension>
<keyrelay:panData>
<keyrelay:name paResult="true">example.org
</keyrelay:name>
<keyrelay:paDate>1999-04-04T22:01:00.0Z
</keyrelay:paDate>
<keyrelay:keyData>
<secDNS:flags>256</secDNS:flags>
<secDNS:protocol>3</secDNS:protocol>
<secDNS:alg>8</secDNS:alg>
<secDNS:pubKey>cmlraXN0aGViZXN0</secDNS:pubKey>
</keyrelay:keyData>
<keyrelay:authInfo>
<domain:pw>JnSdBAZSxxzJ</domain:pw>
</keyrelay:authInfo>
<keyrelay:expiry>
<keyrelay:relative>P24D</keyrelay:relative>
</keyrelay:expiry>
<keyrelay:reID>ClientX</keyrelay:reID>
<keyrelay:acID>ClientY</keyrelay:acID>
</keyrelay:panData>
</extension>
<trID>
<clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
<svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
</trID>
</response>
</epp>
*Object Extension:*
Key Relay is an object that can be created via the create command
and can get information via the info command and response.  The
poll message is simply a key relay info response.
*Key Relay Command *using a Key Relay Create Command.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <epp
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1"
xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
xmlns:keyrelay="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyrelay-1.0"> <command>
<create> <keyrelay:create>
<keyrelay:name>example.org</keyrelay:name> <keyrelay:keyData>
<secDNS:flags>256</secDNS:flags>
<secDNS:protocol>3</secDNS:protocol> <secDNS:alg>8</secDNS:alg>
<secDNS:pubKey>cmlraXN0aGViZXN0</secDNS:pubKey>
</keyrelay:keyData> <keyrelay:authInfo>
<domain:pw>JnSdBAZSxxzJ</domain:pw> </keyrelay:authInfo>
<keyrelay:expiry> <keyrelay:relative>P1M13D</keyrelay:relative>
</keyrelay:expiry> </keyrelay:create> </create>
<clTRID>123456</clTRID> </command> </epp>
*Key Relay Poll Response* * * <epp
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1"
xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
xmlns:keyrelay="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyrelay-1.0"> <response>
<result code="1301"> <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to
dequeue</msg> </result> <msgQ count="5" id="12345">
<qDate>1999-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate> <msg>Key Relay action
completed successfully.</msg> </msgQ> <resData> <keyrelay:infData>
<keyrelay:name paResult="true">example.org </keyrelay:name>
<keyrelay:paDate>1999-04-04T22:01:00.0Z </keyrelay:paDate>
<keyrelay:keyData> <secDNS:flags>256</secDNS:flags>
<secDNS:protocol>3</secDNS:protocol> <secDNS:alg>8</secDNS:alg>
<secDNS:pubKey>cmlraXN0aGViZXN0</secDNS:pubKey>
</keyrelay:keyData> <keyrelay:authInfo>
<domain:pw>JnSdBAZSxxzJ</domain:pw> </keyrelay:authInfo>
<keyrelay:expiry> <keyrelay:relative>P24D</keyrelay:relative>
</keyrelay:expiry> <keyrelay:reID>ClientX</keyrelay:reID>
<keyrelay:acID>ClientY</keyrelay:acID> </keyrelay:infData>
</resData> <trID> <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID>
<svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID> </trID> </response> </epp>
In addition, support can be provided for the Relay Info Command and
associated Response (example provided already with the poll
response).
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <epp
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
xmlns:keyrelay="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyrelay-1.0"> <command>
<info> <keyrelay:info> <keyrelay:name>example.org</keyrelay:name>
</keyrelay:info> </info> <clTRID>123456</clTRID> </command> </epp>
* *
In looking at the samples, I actually like the Object Extension
the best.  I can provide the XSD’s that I validated the examples
against if desired.
Thanks,
--
JG
James Gould Principal Software Engineer [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>
703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com
On 3/13/14, 5:39 AM, "Antoin Verschuren"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
wrote:
op 11-03-14 17:36, Gould, James schreef:
Hi James,
Thanks for your suggestions. We have particularly looked at:
2. Create a Command-Response Extension of the domain mapping that
creates a new keyrelay verb similar to the restore verb in RFC
3915, which is an extension of an empty domain update.  The server
can define who is authorized to invoke the new verb on the domain
name. By defining Key Relay as a new object or a new verb extension
to the domain object, you get all of the advantages of an object
mapping (extensions, client and server transaction identifier). My
recommendation is to go with option #2, since I view Key Relay as a
verb.  In summary, I don’t believe there is the need to create a
protocol extension for this.
One of the requirements from certain registries for keyrelay was
that since keyrelay is only a "preparation communication step" for
a DNS operator change that may or may not be followed by an NS
change or combined transfer/NS change, they did not want any
changes made to records owned by the registrar of record for a
domain object. It's not compulsory to do this "communication" via
the registry, it only facilitates registrars that have no other
secure communication channel. Sometimes a keyrelay command is not
followed by an NS change as the process is abandoned, and that
should not lead to changes in the DB that need to be reverted. The
process would then become more complex than necessary.
Another requirement that we heard from especially gTLD registries
is that a command for which it was necessary to change the
database tables in a fundamental way would not be implemented by
those registries. Since most EPP commands are processes that change
an object in the registry DB and is only authorized by the current
registrar of record, we looked at  a way to do this communication
step without even touching the DB. EPP keyrelay can be implemented
without any changes to the registry DB, and only queries existing
records. This is also how we implemented it.
We only know of one other command that is NOT authorized by the
current registrar of record for a domain object, and that is a
transfer. But if authorized properly by an auth-info token, the
goal of a transfer command is ultimately also to make changes to
the domain object in the DB.
Keyrelay does not intend to change anything to DB objects. That is
ultimately done by an NS change that usually follows a keyrelay if
the process is continued AND the loosing DNS operator cooperates.
If the loosing DNS operator does not cooperate, a different change
to the DB may follow, and it's complex to predict which action
would follow. There is no default process flow, it's up to the
gaining registrar which next step to take (Abandon, postpone, go
insecure, transfer and leave delegation as is, ...), we want him to
be in control.
Could you elaberate on how a Command-Response Extension of the
domain mapping would meet the requirement of not changing anything
fundamental to the registry DB, nor creating a complex
unpredictable state flow? How would the State Diagram similar to
Figure 1 of RFC3915 look like for EPP keyrelay?
Bear in mind, that a pending NS change state for a secure transfer
cannot be held forever, nor can it be predicted what a reasonable
period for that state is. It depends on DNS TTL values that are
not prescribed nor verified in most registry policies. And since we
want the registrant to be in control over his domain, it may well
be that during a pending state, yet another registrar may invoke a
keyrelay if the registrant chooses to change registrars because the
process takes too long or there is another (technical) reason to
change his delegation. So a state diagram is much more difficult to
create than a state diagram for a grace period that is only
dependent on 1 registrar and a state period defined by the
registry's policy.
By completely separating the "preparation communication" from the
state of a domain object, we have avoided the need for a complex
state diagram and fundamental changes to the registry DB. It also
extends EPP with a new command type that may have other benefits in
the future.
For an (even more) elaborate explanation on how we came to this
conclusion, we have written a white paper:
https://www.sidnlabs.nl/uploads/tx_sidnpublications/wp_2013_EPP-keyrelay_v1.en.pdf

On 3/11/14, 9:23 AM, "Antoin Verschuren"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote: Hi, I'd like to answer
the question asked in London why EPP keyrelay is not an object
extension or domain update. Regular EPP commands are submitted to a
registry by the current registrar of record for that object in the
database. Only the registrar of record is allowed to change
attributes to a domain object. EPP keyrelay is a command that
typically is sent to a registry by a registrar NOT being the
registrar of record for that domain object. So the registrar
sending the command is not permitted to change anything in the
database to that object. EPP keyrelay is therefor only a
communication command, and the domain object is only used to
identify the registrar of record for that domain object as a
recipient. The domain object is only queried to identify the
registrar of record, but no attributes are allowed to be changed.
Hope that clarifies the questions raised in London.
_______________________________________________ EppExt mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Technical Policy Advisor SIDN
Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands

P: [phone]  M: [phone]
Mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
XMPP: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
HTTP://www.sidn.nl/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTXiZCAAoJEDqHrM883Agn7mEH/1LBGxWRJW3tKeahqRnR57r3
Lr+8y7EEYwA52yOk4aw7F+LcafSE9xylNw4z7pHuzZ1axV05qW1B4wEHDcTtLq8l
phq0NY50VIAVB08ICrjT4TAljEcxHkVvoFOdoJxt5vclG6wUFF3Rq502oYYIuY1s
EUBJyYxSCogpic+DgnULAqS+0+jQ62n8lGzlOYxJN5eJD2+6wrtTpNukop+IXD5z
v2Ima6NNU9ywR+I+QuWbEFxQxQXfl2GUn5RGzAGAJv8AV2merbc89sClboxCBZ6M
ZUY9HPyO5T7v+B583yxwm4dnCMRboBEmZtpkyZ/rKnESl44syxZJNNkD0VDv6WI=
=xA/Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----