[rpp] Re: Session / registrar mapping

Pawel Kowalik <kowalik@denic.de> Fri, 21 November 2025 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <kowalik@denic.de>
X-Original-To: rpp@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: rpp@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB2A8DDE9F8 for <rpp@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 01:46:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=denic.de
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lsNnTmukRLMX for <rpp@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 01:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout-b-105.mailbox.org (mout-b-105.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:102:465::105]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DDB58DDE9EF for <rpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 01:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp202.mailbox.org (smtp202.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-b-105.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4dCVjp2pgXz9x1y; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:46:54 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denic.de; s=MBO0001; t=1763718414; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GPY7E/Bi9WCSLsCdBzSbYxH3sYnmOO+aQiXexmrKxLI=; b=WOl+HropDoQn764kO3Jyrqr7RbQ3oW38jVP4e4fS4bm5Rnud60FyDisLJjeu/ez8QnQj9a K4n6pseAUtnW7VOZ2IUxD7SuX1NotD96SIZxYyKcKZo3IvKc3t1nLqkMygJ+ptpcFuv4aQ CaERcbkvNt+wGR5wAnA+kSfbFsVI47JECqhGyhHANTshTuoNzZypKPiUCjamBIfgBhs7cT 1Sz+8za7x9AHXIJdNaxrFZGhaSKWF0Q0WYwFlG3MILbmPFT3V85z2U+4w130axpYAVERK7 ZqTkH7D8Frw5qMI7BVEcIKYCgnoprvjNsU2KWuzpaavNs1jABXwYmz15Y+OahQ==
Message-ID: <194be2c9-c6e2-47a0-a71e-aaaaf4cfd37a@denic.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:46:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Pawel Kowalik <kowalik@denic.de>
To: Ruth Trevor-Allen <fleeblewidget@gmail.com>, rpp@ietf.org
References: <CAAVKzhH7iyep3Rrv1XiYXorU5Dk2NfWO+xxghn3dvGrSdoEM4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB, de-DE
In-Reply-To: <CAAVKzhH7iyep3Rrv1XiYXorU5Dk2NfWO+xxghn3dvGrSdoEM4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-512"; boundary="------------ms070400010501030805020500"
X-MBO-RS-META: akbqucqf51okameki459u1xaz3di6f9d
X-MBO-RS-ID: 058ffe4504241b130f0
Message-ID-Hash: EG2DI7O2F7LFDULAIBUU3LZBGFBNIHWE
X-Message-ID-Hash: EG2DI7O2F7LFDULAIBUU3LZBGFBNIHWE
X-MailFrom: kowalik@denic.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [rpp] Re: Session / registrar mapping
List-Id: "This list discusses a provisioning protocol based on RESTful principles and corresponding data representations using JSON." <rpp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rpp/w_cTVqq8vk9GNzV-60VJ0DojfMY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rpp>
List-Help: <mailto:rpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rpp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rpp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rpp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rpp-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Ruth,

I think this is a very valid use case and covering internal usage by 
registry was one of the added values of RPP.
This is something we are indeed missing in the requirements.

Proposal (in the Security section):

R9.x: RPP MUST support authorisation of registry operator power client 
or user, being able to either impersonate any of the clients of the 
registry, or act on behalf of registry with elevated access to 
provisioning objects of all registry clients as well as operations 
beyond of what is available to regular clients.

Would it cover this use case?

Kind Regards,

Pawel

On 20.11.25 14:59, Ruth Trevor-Allen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been working on a prototype RPP implementation for use with web
> apps, and something I'd like us to be able to support is use cases
> where a user is not necessarily exactly equivalent to a registrar. For
> example, they might be a superuser with access to carry out operations
> but no specific registrar ID, or an admin contact at multiple
> registrars with a single login to a web app which maps to multiple EPP
> logins. In order to offer a seamless experience to these users, it
> would be nice to be able to specify a registrar ID when carrying out
> operations where one is needed (for example domain: create), but it
> would also be nice not to have to identify the registrar for
> operations where it doesn't matter or can be inferred.
>
> In particular, using EPP as a backend for apps like these, domain:
> check is an example of an operation where the actual registrar ID
> doesn't normally matter as long as the user has access to the TLD in
> general, and having to identify the appropriate user in order to
> submit the request can be undesirable overhead.
>
> I don't know if this has implications for RPP design but wanted to
> flag it - is anyone else having these issues?
>
> Thanks,
> Ruth
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpp mailing list -- rpp@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpp-leave@ietf.org