Network Working Group E. Skoglund Internet-Draft The Swedish Internet Foundation Intended status: Standards Track S. Kämpf Expires: 7 April 2027 DENIC 4 October 2026 Registry Lock Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) draft-skoglund-epp-registry-lock-01 Abstract This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension for setting and managing a registry lock on a domain object. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-skoglund-epp-registry-lock/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/EricIO/draft-regext-epp-registry-lock. 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 7 April 2027. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 1] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Registry Lock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1. Registry Lock Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.2. Status Values for Locked Domains . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.3. Adding a registry lock to a domain . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.4. Handling changes to an associated contact object . . 5 1.2.5. Handling changes to a locked domain . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Extension Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3.1. The element . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3.2. The element . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.3. The element . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4.1. EPP Query Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4.2. EPP Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4.3. EPP Transform Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.5. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1. Introduction A registry lock secures a domain from any unauthorized changes to it on the registry level as opposed to the registrar level. It is targeted primarily at high value, business critical domains, where holders value the benefits of the increased security of business- critical domains over the risks of unauthorized or unwanted changes to their domains. This document describes an EPP extension to the domain object mapping ([RFC5731]) that allows a sponsoring client to manage registry locked domains automatically. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 2] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [BCP14] (RFC2119) (RFC8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. In this document's examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and white space in these examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not required features of this protocol. 1.2. Registry Lock Many registries provide registrants for a way to add protection to their domains by locking them at the registry level. By locking a domain a registrant ensures that any changes (except for renewing the domain) are verified by the registry before going into effect. As of yet there have been no standardized process for a registry lock and registries that provide it have come up with different processes, most including some level of manual intervention. While a domain that has registry lock enabled on it needs authorization for any changes made to it a registry MAY allow changes bypassing the authorization via automated DNSSEC provisioning, for example using a CDS/CSYNC scanner. The removal of a registry lock is a manual, operational procedure and is not covered in this specification. In this document, we define an EPP extension that enables registries and registrars to further automate the registry lock process. 1.2.1. Registry Lock Contact A registry lock contact is a contact connected to a domain object that is able to authorize changes to the object. A domain MAY have multiple registry lock contacts, in which case changes MAY need to be authorized by multiple registry lock contacts. A server MAY restrict the maximum number of registry lock contacts connected to a domain. 1.2.2. Status Values for Locked Domains Once a registry lock has been applied on a domain object the object MUST have the serverDeleteProhibited status value set on it. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 3] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 While a transform request is pending authorization, the serverPendingUpdate status MUST be set on the domain. 1.2.3. Adding a registry lock to a domain Registry lock can be activated when a domain is created with a extension, or on an existing domain by adding its first registry lock contact with . The server MUST respond with result code 1001 as defined in section 3 of [RFC5730] and await the required authorizations. A server MUST send a poll message when the request is approved, rejected, or times out. Example poll message indicating success: S: S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue S: S: S: S: 2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z S: Setting registry lock on domain succeeded. S: S: S: S: example.com S: create S: 12345-XYZ S: S: S: rl1001 S: S: S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 4] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 If authorization times out, the poll data identifies the outcome as timedOut. Example poll message indicating timeout: S: S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue S: S: S: S: 2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z S: Setting registry lock on domain timed out. S: S: S: S: example.com S: create S: 12345-XYZ S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: 1.2.4. Handling changes to an associated contact object Updates to a contact object that is associated as a registry lock contact for a domain object MUST be rejected with result code 2305 as defined in section 3 of [RFC5730]. 1.2.5. Handling changes to a locked domain If an update command for a locked domain is processed successfully, a server MUST respond with a result code of 1001 as defined in section 3 of [RFC5730], to indicate that the transform is awaiting authorization to be completed. A server MUST send a poll message when the transform is approved, rejected, or times out. Example poll message indicating success: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 5] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 S: S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue S: S: S: S: 2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z S: Update of locked domain succeeded. S: S: S: S: example.com S: update S: 12345-XYZ S: S: S: rl1001 S: S: S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: If a lock contact rejects a transform, the poll data identifies the outcome as rejected. Example poll message indicating rejection: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 6] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 S: S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue S: S: S: S: 2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z S: Update of locked domain was rejected. S: S: S: S: example.com S: update S: 12345-XYZ S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54321-XYZ S: S: S: 1.3. Extension Elements This extension adds additional elements to the EPP domain mapping. 1.3.1. The element The element in a create command, and the element in an update command or info response, contain the following elements: * One OPTIONAL element that sets the authorization deadline. Its value is a positive integer followed by s, m, h, or d for seconds, minutes, hours, or days. A server MAY restrict the allowed values. * One OPTIONAL element that contains a positive integer setting the number of registry lock contacts that MUST authorize a change. A server MAY restrict the number of registry lock contacts a domain can have. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 7] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 At least one policy value MUST be supplied when is included in a element. The server applies its policy for any value omitted by the client. The quorum MUST NOT exceed the number of registry lock contacts on the domain after the command is applied. 1.3.2. The element The element contains the following elements: * the contact identifier. * An OPTIONAL the method used by the registry lock contact to authorize changes. A server MAY restrict the allowed values. A in or contains only . A in / MUST also contain . 1.3.2.1. Well known values The following values have well-known definitions. A server MAY allow other values: * email - The contact will receive an email with further instructions. * text - The contact will receive a text message with further instructions. * letter - The contact will receive a postal letter with further instructions. * phone - The contact will receive a phone call with further instructions. * token - The contact will be provided means to send a token to the server for authorizing changes. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 8] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 1.3.3. The element A poll response uses in . It identifies the domain, the server transaction ID of the original request, and an operation of create or update. The operation's outcome attribute is approved, rejected, or timedOut. An OPTIONAL element lists the contacts that approved the request, each by ID. The EPP text is informational; clients use the outcome attribute to distinguish results. 1.4. EPP Command Mapping 1.4.1. EPP Query Commands 1.4.1.1. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command or response described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. 1.4.1.2. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. However, additional elements are defined for the response. The element contains optional , required with one or more contacts, and optional for the one pending request allowed on a locked domain. Each pending contact has a status of pending, approved, or rejected. An example response for a domain object with no pending updates: S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: example.com S: EXAMPLE1-REP S: S: jd1234 S: sh8013 Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 9] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 S: sh8013 S: S: ns1.example.com S: ns2.example.com S: S: ns1.example.com S: ns2.example.com S: ClientX S: ClientY S: 1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z S: ClientX S: 1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z S: 2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z S: 2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z S: S: 2fooBAR S: S: S: S: S: S: S: 1h S: 2 S: S: S: S: rl1001 S: email S: S: S: rl1002 S: email S: S: S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54322-XYZ S: S: S: An example response for a domain with pending updates: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 10] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 S: S: S: S: S: Command completed successfully S: S: S: S: example.com S: EXAMPLE1-REP S: S: jd1234 S: sh8013 S: sh8013 S: S: ns1.example.com S: ns2.example.com S: S: ns1.example.com S: ns2.example.com S: ClientX S: ClientY S: 1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z S: ClientX S: 1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z S: 2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z S: 2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z S: S: 2fooBAR S: S: S: S: S: S: S: 1h S: 2 S: S: S: S: rl1001 S: email S: S: S: rl1002 Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 11] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 S: email S: S: S: S: S: 12345-XYZ S: S: rl1001 S: S: S: rl1002 S: S: S: S: S: S: S: ABC-12345 S: 54322-XYZ S: S: S: 1.4.2. EPP Command This extension does not add any elements to the EPP command or responses as described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. 1.4.3. EPP Transform Commands EPP provides five commands to transform objects: to create an instance of an object, to delete an instance of an object, to extend the validity period of an object, to manage object sponsorship changes, and to change information associated with an object. 1.4.3.1. EPP Command This extension defines additional elements for the EPP command described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. No additional elements are defined for the EPP response. A element contains an OPTIONAL and a required element with one or more contacts. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 12] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 C: C: C: C: C: C: example.com C: jd1234 C: sh8013 C: sh8013 C: C: 2fooBAR C: C: C: C: C: C: C: 1h C: C: C: C: rl1001 C: email C: C: C: C: C: ABC-12345 C: C: 1.4.3.2. EPP Command 1.4.3.2.1. Domain Objects This extension does not define any additional elements to the EPP command or responses described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. However if a server receives a command for a domain object with registry lock set it MUST be rejected. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 13] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 1.4.3.2.2. Contact Objects This extension does not define any additional elements to the EPP command or responses described in the EPP contact mapping [RFC5733]. However if a server receives a command for a contact object associated as a registry lock contact with a domain object it MUST be rejected. 1.4.3.3. EPP Command This extension does not define any additional elements to the EPP command or responses described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. 1.4.3.4. EPP Command This extension does not define any additional elements to the EPP command or responses described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. 1.4.3.5. EPP Command This extension defines additional elements for the EPP command described in the EPP domain mapping [RFC5731]. No additional elements are defined for the EPP response. To change data defined by this extension, the EPP command MUST contain within . It contains one or more of , , and , each at most once. and contain one or more elements. Adding the first registry lock contact to an existing domain activates its lock. Removing the last registry lock contact MUST be rejected; removal of the lock remains a manual procedure. contains to change one or both policy values, to change the authorization method of one or more existing contacts, or both in either order. Each contact method change identifies the contact by and supplies its new . An example update command changing policy data: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 14] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 C: C: C: C: C: C: example.com C: C: C: C: C: C: C: 3h C: C: C: C: C: ABC-12345 C: C: An example update command adding and removing registry lock contacts: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 15] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 C: C: C: C: C: C: example.com C: C: C: C: C: C: C: rl1003 C: email C: C: C: rl1004 C: email C: C: C: C: C: rl1001 C: C: C: C: C: ABC-12345 C: C: An example update command activating registry lock on an existing domain: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 16] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 C: C: C: C: C: C: example.com C: C: C: C: C: C: C: rl1001 C: email C: C: C: C: C: 1h C: 1 C: C: C: C: C: ABC-12345 C: C: An example update command changing a lock contact's authorization method: Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 17] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 C: C: C: C: C: C: example.com C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: rl1001 C: phone C: C: C: C: C: C: ABC-12346 C: C: 1.5. Formal Syntax The following XML Schema defines the registry lock extension namespace. file "registry-lock.xsd" Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0 registry lock extension schema. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 18] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 19] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 21] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 22] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 Figure 1 2. Security Considerations The security considerations for EPP [RFC5730], its domain mapping [RFC5731], and its contact mapping [RFC5733] apply to this extension. Registry lock relies on the authentication, confidentiality, and integrity protections of EPP and its transport. It does not replace those protections. Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 23] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 The contact authorization mechanisms are outside the scope of this specification. Their security determines whether registry lock provides effective protection against a compromised registrar account. Approval needs to identify the domain, the original transaction, and the exact requested changes. Reusing an approval for a different request, or accepting an approval after the authorization deadline, could permit unauthorized changes. Changes to registry lock contacts, their authorization methods, and the quorum policy require the same protection as other changes to a locked domain. Otherwise, an attacker could replace the contacts or reduce the quorum before requesting a domain change. Manual lock removal and any registry policy that bypasses authorization are also part of the security boundary and need appropriate authentication and audit controls. Contact identifiers and approval status can reveal information about the people responsible for a domain. Access to this information needs to be limited to authorized clients. Pending requests and repeated authorization notifications can also be used to exhaust resources or overwhelm contacts; implementations need suitable limits on these activities. 3. IANA Considerations This document requests registration of the following namespace and schema URIs in the IETF XML Registry, following the procedures in [RFC3688]. 3.1. XML Namespace * URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:regLock-1.0 * Registrant Contact: IESG * XML: None. This URI identifies an XML namespace. 3.2. XML Schema * URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:regLock-1.0 * Registrant Contact: IESG * XML: The schema in Section 1.5. 4. Normative References Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 24] Internet-Draft EPP Registry Lock October 2026 [BCP14] Best Current Practice 14, . At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [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, . [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, August 2009, . Authors' Addresses Eric Skoglund The Swedish Internet Foundation Email: eric.skoglund@internetstiftelsen.se Sascha Kämpf DENIC Email: kaempf@denic.de Skoglund & Kämpf Expires 7 April 2027 [Page 25]