Internet DRAFT - draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report
draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report
Internet Engineering Task Force T. Sattler, Editor
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: June 2, 2019 December 3, 2018
Registry Unavailable Domain Name Report
draft-sattler-registry-unavailable-domain-report-00
Abstract
This document describes the content of an unavailable domain name
report based on the registry report structure and delivered by the
registry reporting repository.
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 June 2, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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.
Sattler Expires June 2, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registry Unavailable Domain Report December 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Internationalized Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Dates and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Report Headings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Single TLD File Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Multiple TLDs File Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
Modern top-level domain registries provide a number of detailed
reports and documents that their registrars require on a daily,
weekly and monthly basis. These most commonly include transaction
reports, as well as lists containing currently unavailable domains
and current premium domains. These reports are critical for
registrars' businesses and play an important role in accounting and
operations processes as well as in sales and marketing activities.
In the current set-up registrars must download these reports from
each registry's intranet in a different manner according to each
registry's own document management set up.
This document describes the content of an unavailable domain name
report based on the [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure]
and delivered by the [I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo].
2. Terminology and Definitions
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 [RFC2119] when
specified in their uppercase forms.
2.1. Internationalized Domain Names
MUST be as defined in
[I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure].
Sattler Expires June 2, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registry Unavailable Domain Report December 2018
2.2. Dates and Times
MUST be as defined in
[I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure].
2.3. Character Encoding
MUST be as defined in
[I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure].
3. Report Headings
The first row MUST be the column headings in the following order:
TLD It MUST contain the top-level domain name and
formatted according to section 2.1 of this
document.
DOMAIN It MUST contain the domain name formatted according
to section 2.1 of this document.
STATUS It MUST contain the status of the domain name. It
MUST either be 'REGISTRY REGISTERED', 'REGISTERED',
'REGISTRY RESERVED' or 'POLICY RESERVED'.
4. Examples
4.1. Single TLD File Example
This is an example of a domain fee report for a single top-level
domain .example with non-standard fees.
Filename: example_unavailable-domains_2018-11-01.csv.gz
TLD,DOMAIN,STATUS
example,test1.example,REGISTRY RESERVED
example,test2.example,POLICY RESERVED
example,test3.example,REGISTERED
example,xn--4gqvdy3r.example,REGISTERED
4.2. Multiple TLDs File Example
This is an example of a domain fee report for multiple top-level
domains from example registry with non-standard fees.
Filename: example-registry_unavailable-domains_2018-11.csv.gz
TLD,DOMAIN,STATUS
example1,test1.example1,REGISTRY RESERVED
example2,test1.example2,POLICY RESERVED
example3,test2.example3,REGISTERED
xn--zckzah,xn--r8jz45g.xn--zckzah,POLICY RESERVED
Sattler Expires June 2, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registry Unavailable Domain Report December 2018
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
The registry unavailable domain report described in this document
does not provide any security services.
7. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
[RFC7942] before publication.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It
is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
Add implementation details once available.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-report-structure]
McPherson, N. and Sattler, T., "Registry Report Strucutre"
, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcpherson-
sattler-registry-report-structure/> (work in
progress), November 2018
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Sattler Expires June 2, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registry Unavailable Domain Report December 2018
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo]
McPherson, N. and Sattler, T., "Registry Reporting
Repository", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
mcpherson-sattler-registry-reporting-repo/> (work in
progress), November 2018
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and Farrel, A., "Improving Awareness of
Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC
7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Appendix A. Change History
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions (sorted alphabetically by company):
o Neal McPherson, 1&1 IONOS
o James Galvin, Afilias
o Roger Carney, GoDaddy
Author's Address
Tobias Sattler
Email: tobias.sattler@me.com
URI: https://tobiassattler.com
Sattler Expires June 2, 2019 [Page 5]
