Re: [regext] How to handle Domain Info Command with empty authinfo/pw tag in command?

"Patrick Mevzek" <pm@dotandco.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pm@dotandco.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313D712082C for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:28:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dotandco.com header.b=B2CvSHkv; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=qZs4odVd
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Se8YJxMOROFY for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3032120806 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D5985A for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:28:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap1 ([10.202.2.51]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:28:30 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dotandco.com; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=GBHG8lHqWMAZWRcNROjaTaCVT42tX6a NhCRM+D+m9Os=; b=B2CvSHkvWVXTy7UYsFTrByey9EnTbJH/hPEV0YDVm6QsSZ9 p+701CsOAF97kKrtkShk4rOjagVF/VBx5n3CqBlEGOm/dhbdG0HpNKxvOCxL2rJG kKLJlVxCzBXzQ0nuJ+g6bRAEwwumyZnr12MMlxqBEWu/d33qr64bB1XeQD6MW1JE hlNf69gOWQ3jWg2mobswPDQfjxlfW2kUggZflhgHX2ZmMAYamSyV9NbJQWkQSjA9 gcu515NDbB868rbswerI7pfo/SkZl/wKDok3Mo0XcLq5/CDoSuTFQwTqFfS438jn CxtWi0Pemym+f0xHKYm47ZNjeDqJsq4IfFgamrQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=GBHG8l HqWMAZWRcNROjaTaCVT42tX6aNhCRM+D+m9Os=; b=qZs4odVddPB6s9qb90pnYG Jyid9jqw/qpSlfiTKzIgedPTjuj8Ys6h7CMeWBm9D8fLmQgQUYw2PwacrmXnpHah pA3+53B9/yNqGF1sHwG5Lcb63TRWqCdGATls/PVdvHjqHSmEzrUKEuPap8dA3c4Z MrnSd7Q/cROcBDwdAvTj7RlQE1uCJ6vv5KDrHa9owb5RjrzrJnxgGt5kBdpoOI+7 h7ZhPb5aVpv7GDVqnvk4xS3TQon5nXpzn8aNAe4zCO27ohbnrljQjxc3+vUT3vSg vI+9hVtmXj8gZRrTQ1xvzWSIHHFg3oZO6brXu6RRLx4Bq78zOEtj0VdS4A4mTjTA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PZT8XaZ7ZPb8YCZaOuKhAn_mG6DOnYm1fOOnRmo2A7NV-28SZBFnH1kj7a8>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvddufedgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfrfgrthhrihgtkhcuofgvvhiivghkfdcuoehpmhesugho thgrnhgutghordgtohhmqeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhmseguohhtrg hnuggtohdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PZT8XYTTuo7cSsMfkCGtFCKc6-MKB2CY-kKkWyeanKGlqhorNhqm0g> <xmx:PZT8Xcxnc3iMzOnzeGnQ2Zhk8LyYbvMuJ-lVhF2yKpXNL-gxe8afyQ> <xmx:PZT8Xa2HXv5KOS4TJCG1Tjl5ZG_9X3_TD1fcbL73m3PY-3T5Dk-00w> <xmx:PpT8Xc4J4UN71ZB-tE6zKcLl0hetA8c_-XTPaTCl8k7PnvMwHMZmpw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id AE21EC200A4; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:28:29 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-694-gd5bab98-fmstable-20191218v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <3f00660c-e8ce-461e-93ee-c1e003b90551@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d17d88d0-e9db-9416-1917-dc992fcd2d3a@switch.ch>
References: <d17d88d0-e9db-9416-1917-dc992fcd2d3a@switch.ch>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:28:09 -0500
From: "Patrick Mevzek" <pm@dotandco.com>
To: regext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/IXmR9SVkG9a4wFmfRPLoL4CAXBM>
Subject: Re: [regext] =?utf-8?q?How_to_handle_Domain_Info_Command_with_empty_?= =?utf-8?q?authinfo/pw_tag_in_command=3F?=
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:28:33 -0000


On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, at 04:04, Martin Casanova wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I was hoping for some input of the community about an implementation
> decision for the Domain Info Command/Response when it comes to the
> optional <domain:authInfo> associated with the domain object.

Unfortunately, currently, everyone does things differently.
I recently made an internal survey about how registries reply in the following
cases of domain:info

- by sponsor (note that I seem to recall a registry giving out an error
if you are sponsor but do provide the authInfo, where without it is a success)
- when not sponsor, without an authInfo, with a valid one, with an invalid one
- and also for an unregistered domain, results with or without authInfo.

I still need to be able to wrap my brains around the multiple cases I have found,
no uniformity at all. This makes life of registrars very complicated,
but the problem here comes from the special handling of passwords, and also
GDPR-level issues.

> 2.
> In case an empty tag is given (<authinfo><pw/></authinfo>) we are
> wondering if:
> Option 1: always Response Code 1000 should be returned
> Option 2: Only answer with 1000 when there is NO authinfo/pw set on the
> domain (kind of confirming it) and otherwise 2202 considering an empty
> tag as invalid authorization information delivered.

Like said in other message, a node being there but empty means the empty value
not the undefined one. I would say the reply should be positive only if the
domain authInfo is also the empty string (which is different from being undefined)
 
> After all, the registry could have set or deleted <authinfo> without
> noticing the registrar.

Registries should at least send EPP notifications for anything they do on 
registrar objects, otherwise registrars have no hope to keep their own
database in sync.


> However many clients seem to send
> <authinfo><pw/></authinfo> just about always and they would need to adjust.

There are as many broken clients as they are broken servers...
 
-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  pm@dotandco.com