Oops! Here it is.
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026, at 12:18, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
>
> Maybe that's only me, but I don't see any attached xml file.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Gavin Brown <[email protected]>
>> Envoyé : mercredi 26 août 2026 11:55
>> À : [email protected]
>> Cc : [email protected]; [email protected];
>> [email protected]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
>> <[email protected]>; Mahesh Jethanandani
>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
>> Objet : Re: Final Review: RFC-to-be 10037 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
>> ttl-extension) in XML
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Please find the updated XML for this document, which addresses all
>> your questions. I have added comments inline providing responses
>> and describing the changes I've made.
>>
>> I approve publication of this version.
>>
>> Many thanks!
>>
>> Gavin.
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2026, at 23:02, [email protected] wrote:
>> > *****IMPORTANT*****
>> >
>> > RFC Author(s):
>> > --------------
>> >
>> > Final Review for RFC-to-be 10037
>> > <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension>
>> >
>> > Your document is now available for Final Review (previously
>> AUTH48).
>> > Once it has been
>> > reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be
>> published
>> > as an RFC.
>> > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies;
>> see
>> > the Unavailable Authors section
>> >
>> (https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>> Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfc-publication-process%23unavailable-
>> authors&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb7
>> 8b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C639233349809222580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRyd
>> WUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%
>> 3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=af1uVU%2FYCqDhKi6xvYBtSAXSxQ4F%2FRyDriMol
>> uti99A%3D&reserved=0).
>> >
>> > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>> > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before
>> providing
>> > your approval.
>> >
>> > Planning your review
>> > ---------------------
>> >
>> > Please review the following aspects of your document:
>> >
>> > * RFC Editor questions
>> >
>> > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC
>> Editor
>> > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>> > follows:
>> >
>> > <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>> >
>> > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>> >
>> > * Changes submitted by coauthors
>> >
>> > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>> > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>> > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>> >
>> > * Content
>> >
>> > Please review the full content of the document, as this
>> cannot
>> > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular
>> attention to:
>> > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>> > - contact information
>> > - references
>> >
>> > * Copyright notices and legends
>> >
>> > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>> > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>> > (TLP -
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> trustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-
>> info&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b4
>> 12c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6
>> 39233349809242529%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUs
>> IlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%
>> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7invQSojJBOzQl%2F1BSPvvsiNrzkG0Xmr3w67qq%2BF
>> 2G8%3D&reserved=0).
>> >
>> > * Semantic markup
>> >
>> > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that
>> elements of
>> > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that
>> <sourcecode>
>> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
>> >
>> <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>> Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-
>> vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfc
>> cb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7
>> C0%7C639233349809254575%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn
>> RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy
>> fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=G5rKu3rMuvq2aQwlK0LppwNqV5BVkkDvlWMGFF
>> eAGYs%3D&reserved=0>.
>> >
>> > * Formatted output
>> >
>> > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>> > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML
>> file, is
>> > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>> > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>> >
>> >
>> > Submitting changes
>> > ------------------
>> >
>> > To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL'
>> as all
>> > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
>> parties
>> > include:
>> >
>> > * your coauthors
>> >
>> > * [email protected] (the RPC team)
>> >
>> > * other document participants, depending on the stream
>> (e.g.,
>> > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs,
>> the
>> > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>> >
>> > * [email protected], which is an archival mailing
>> list
>> > to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC
>> editorial
>> > queue; it is not an active discussion list:
>> >
>> > * More info:
>> >
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> mail
>> > archive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-
>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P
>> >
>> 8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b
>> 412c
>> >
>> 0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6392
>> 3334
>> >
>> 9809265980%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiI
>> wLjA
>> >
>> uMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7
>> C%7C
>> > &sdata=TM66348TJEYuWNiCKeHytaTZZrHIS576fyjOgar6w4c%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> > * The archive itself:
>> >
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> mail
>> >
>> archive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7
>> Cmoh
>> >
>> amed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C9
>> 0c7a
>> >
>> 20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809277072%7CUnknown
>> %7CT
>> >
>> WFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4
>> zMiI
>> >
>> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TDXKFY8TvI8Km
>> H4iU
>> > A44TZA0gwQN9iBHRiabboWj9IE%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily
>> opt out
>> > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a
>> sensitive matter).
>> > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message
>> that you
>> > have dropped the address. When the discussion is
>> concluded,
>> > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC
>> list and
>> > its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>> >
>> > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>> >
>> > An update to the provided XML file
>> > - OR -
>> > An explicit list of changes in this format
>> >
>> > Section # (or indicate Global)
>> >
>> > OLD:
>> > old text
>> >
>> > NEW:
>> > new text
>> >
>> > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
>> explicit
>> > list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>> >
>> > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
>> that
>> > seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text,
>> deletion
>> > of text, and technical changes. Information about stream
>> managers can
>> > be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval
>> from a stream manager.
>> >
>> >
>> > Approving for publication
>> > --------------------------
>> >
>> > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email
>> > stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use
>> 'REPLY
>> > ALL', as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your
>> approval.
>> >
>> >
>> > Files
>> > -----
>> >
>> > The files are available here:
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> www.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10037.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada
>> ir%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b4
>> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809288543%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
>> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI
>> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FMCmFQSmgPpxU
>> yuObVaWL2BODy9vGEaRMJVgcJhMcgE%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> www.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10037.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucad
>> air%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b
>> 40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809302711%7CUnknown%7CTWFp
>> bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi
>> IsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XfIXfxvCeZgy
>> fX0HmiK0Y9KLgjyfStH9gFBeFY6xuFo%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> www.rfc-
>> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10037.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada
>> ir%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b4
>> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809317474%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
>> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI
>> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nN2n9%2Fk4OSg
>> NBF6L4AuN4LCJ6KTvA9Cw5JLlqEm17Ms%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> www.
>> > rfc-
>> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10037.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada
>> >
>> ir%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b4
>> 0bfb
>> >
>> c48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809328579%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb
>> 3d8e
>> >
>> yJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo
>> iTWF
>> >
>> pbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ONcKa26H84BfYwoC1klq4SgSx
>> Ujsg
>> > h7f%2B9Zoy2buNxE%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> > Diff file of the text:
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10037-
>> diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfcc
>> b78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C
>> 0%7C639233349809339566%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR
>> ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf
>> Q%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Bn6eZ2pLwd0Dx2XNyKKhJa3iRqkPBBZuPbwWY
>> P8PiFY%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> www.
>> > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10037-
>> rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohame
>> >
>> d.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7
>> a20a
>> >
>> f34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809358103%7CUnknown%7C
>> TWFp
>> >
>> bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi
>> IsIk
>> >
>> FOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5Xgo92H3uo0o1PPu
>> UncD
>> > kt1%2Fm6WxnRFn2%2BnhQv91jPQ%3D&reserved=0 (side by side)
>> >
>> > Diff of the XML:
>> >
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> www.
>> > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10037-
>> xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmoham
>> >
>> ed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c
>> 7a20
>> >
>> af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809375822%7CUnknown%7
>> CTWF
>> >
>> pbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zM
>> iIsI
>> >
>> kFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FzGiYNw1QpCRD
>> EfwU
>> > 48q%2FRS0PjswOKLidOLqtDmdWD8%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> >
>> > Tracking progress
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > Details on the status of your Final Review are here:
>> >
>> >
>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> queu
>> > e.rfc-editor.org%2Ffinal-
>> review%2Frfc10037%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.b
>> >
>> oucadair%40orange.com%7C6c23cfccb78b412c0e4908df03582419%7C90c7a20
>> af34
>> >
>> b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639233349809387122%7CUnknown%7CTWF
>> pbGZ
>> >
>> sb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsI
>> kFOI
>> >
>> joiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=k4nzQPfnHJmfJwH9U0s
>> AAkA
>> > qX9aT3J9P%2B1loPY3UZ%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> > Please let us know if you have any questions.
>> >
>> > Thank you for your cooperation,
>> >
>> > RFC Editor
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > RFC 10037 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension)
>> >
>> > Title : RDAP Extension for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL
>> Values)
>> > Author(s) : Gavin Brown
>> > WG Chair(s) : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano
>> > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
> ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"; category="std" docName="draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-12" number="10037" ipr="trust200902" submissionType="IETF" consensus="true" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3" xml:lang="en" updates="" obsoletes="">
<!--[rfced] Please note that the title has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC
7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). We also made "To" lowercase (which
matches the title of RFC 9803).
Original:
RDAP Extension for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL Values)
Current:
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension
for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values
-->
<!-- response: fine by me. -->
<front>
<title abbrev="RDAP TTL Extension">Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values</title>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="10037"/>
<author initials="G." surname="Brown" fullname="Gavin Brown">
<organization>ICANN</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300</street>
<city>Los Angeles</city>
<code>90094-2536</code>
<country>United States of America</country>
<region>CA</region>
</postal>
<email>[email protected]</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="August" year="2026"/>
<area>OPS</area>
<workgroup>regext</workgroup>
<!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->
<!-- response: done. -->
<keyword>RDAP</keyword>
<keyword>DNS</keyword>
<keyword>TTL</keyword>
<keyword>time-to-live</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP), which allows the Time-to-Live (TTL) values for relevant DNS record types to be included in RDAP responses.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="introduction">
<name>Introduction</name>
<t>
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) <xref target="STD95"/> provides access to information about Internet resources (domain names, autonomous system numbers, and IP addresses).
While <xref format="none" target="RFC9083">RFC 9083</xref> <xref target="STD95"/> allows RDAP server operators to provide information about the content of the "<tt>NS</tt>", "<tt>DS</tt>", "<tt>A</tt>", and "<tt>AAAA</tt>" RRset(s) (see <xref section="5" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9499"/>), which are published in the DNS for a given registry object (domain or host object),
it does not provide a mechanism to allow the Time-to-Live (TTL) values (see <xref section="5" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9499"/>) of those RRsets to be included in responses.
Inclusion of these values in RDAP responses (in addition to nameservers, glue IP addresses, and Delegation Signer (DS) records) allows out-of-band debugging of the DNS configuration of troublesome domain names.
</t>
<t>
This document describes how TTL information can be included in domain and nameserver objects in RDAP responses. As per <xref section="5.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC2181"/>, TTL values are applicable to RRsets rather than individual records.
</t>
</section>
<section>
<name>Conventions Used in This Document</name>
<t>
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCPÂ 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
</t>
<t>
This document uses terms defined in Section <xref section="1.1" sectionFormat="bare" target="RFC9083"/> of <xref format="none" target="RFC9083">RFC 9083</xref> <xref target="STD95"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="rdap-response-specification">
<name>RDAP Response Specification</name>
<!--[rfced] This document uses four different terms for the
"ttl0_data" JSON object and its "values"/"remarks" sub-parts:
"property" (used most frequently), "member", "element", and
"attribute". For consistency, please let us know which term
should be used throughout. (We note that RFC 9083 consistently
uses "member" for JSON name/value pairs.)
Use of "property" (Section 3):
Servers that support this extension MAY include a "ttl0_data"
property in any domain...
Use of "member" (Section 3):
...clients that do not implement this specification SHOULD
ignore the "ttl0_data" member.
Uses of "element" (Section 4.2):
...should explicitly carve out the "values" property of
"ttl0_data" elements.
Since the list of record types appearing in "ttl0_data" elements
may change with time...
Uses of "attribute" (Section 3):
An example domain object with a valid "ttl0_data" attribute is
provided below.
An example nameserver object with a valid "ttl0_data" attribute
is provided below.
-->
<!-- response: I have replaced all occurrences of "property", "element" and "attribute" with "member" to align with RFC 9083. -->
<t>
Servers that support this extension <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include a "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" member in any domain (Section <xref section="5.3" sectionFormat="bare" target="RFC9083"/> of <xref format="none" target="RFC9083">RFC 9083</xref> <xref target="STD95"/>) and nameserver (Section <xref section="5.2" sectionFormat="bare" target="RFC9083"/> of <xref format="none" target="RFC9083">RFC 9083</xref> <xref target="STD95"/>) objects included in RDAP responses.
As per Section <xref section="2.1" sectionFormat="bare" target="RFC9083"/> of <xref format="none" target="RFC9083">RFC 9083</xref> <xref target="STD95"/>, clients that do not implement this specification <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> ignore the "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" member.</t>
<!--[rfced] We note that the use of quotation marks around terms
tagged with "<tt> is inconsistent. In most instances, the term is
set off with quotation marks in addition to the "<tt> tags (e.g.,
"<tt>ttl0_data</tt>"), but in the instances below, the quotation
marks are omitted. For consistency, please let us know if
quotation marks should be added in these instances or removed
from the other instances throughout the document.
Note: In the last example, "ttl0" has quotation marks but
"rdapConformance" does not.
Current:
Section 3:
The "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" property is an object that has the
following properties:
Section 3.1:
The DNS record type mnemonics that appear as the property
names in "<tt>values</tt>" objects MUST be in all capitals...
Section 3.2:
Servers returning responses containing TTL values MUST include
the string "<tt>ttl0</tt>" in the "<tt>rdapConformance</tt>"
array.
-->
<!-- response: I have added quotes to the unquoted <tt> elements to be consistent. -->
<t>
The "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" member is an object that has the following members:
</t>
<ul>
<li>A "<tt>values</tt>" member, which is an object that maps DNS record type mnemonics to TTL values; and</li>
<li>An <bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> "<tt>remarks</tt>" member, which is an array of remarks (see Section <xref section="4.3" sectionFormat="bare" target="RFC9083"/> of <xref format="none" target="RFC9083">RFC 9083</xref> <xref target="STD95"/>).</li>
</ul>
<t>
As specified in <xref section="8" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC2181"/>, a TTL value is "an unsigned number, with a minimum value of 0, and a maximum value of 2147483647. That is, a maximum of 2^31 - 1". TTL values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be represented as JSON numbers with no fractional component and no exponent notation.
</t>
<t>
The TTL values included in "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" members <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reflect the TTL values as provisioned in the registry database, not the remaining TTL of DNS records as observed from live DNS queries.
</t>
<t>
An example domain object with a valid "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" member is provided below. Readers should refer to <xref format="none" target="RFC9083">RFC 9083</xref> <xref target="STD95"/> for a description of the other objects listed in the example.
</t>
<!--[rfced] Sourcecode examples in Section 3
a) In the first sourcecode example, we note an extra space before
"registry". Is this intentional, or should "registry" be moved
over one space to the left? And should a period be added after
"https://domain.example"; for consistency?
Current:
"description": [
"For more information about the .example",
" registry policy relating to DS record TTL changes,",
"see https://domain.example";
Perhaps:
"description": [
"For more information about the .example",
"registry policy relating to DS record TTL changes,",
"see https://domain.example.";
b) In the second sourcecode example, we note a space after
"TTL" - is that intentional, or should the extra space be
deleted?
Current:
"description": [
"The .example registry does not permit TTL ",
"values for nameservers to be changed."
Perhaps:
"description": [
"The .example registry does not permit TTL",
"values for nameservers to be changed."
-->
<!-- response: the extra spaces are intentional. -->
<sourcecode type="json"><![CDATA[
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"rdapConformance": ["rdap_level_0", "ttl0"],
"ldhName": "domain.example",
"ttl0_data": {
"values": {
"NS": 3600,
"DS": 300
},
"remarks": [
{
"description": [
"For more information about the .example",
" registry policy relating to DS record TTL changes,",
"see https://domain.example";
],
"links": [
{
"rel": "related",
"title": ".Example Registry DNS TTL Policy",
"href": "https://domain.example";
}
]
}
]
}
}]]></sourcecode>
<t>
An example nameserver object with a valid "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" member is provided below.
</t>
<sourcecode type="json"><![CDATA[
{
"objectClassName": "nameserver",
"rdapConformance": ["rdap_level_0", "ttl0"],
"ldhName": "ns1.domain.example",
"ttl0_data": {
"values": {
"A": 86400,
"AAAA": 86400
},
"remarks": [
{
"description": [
"The .example registry does not permit TTL ",
"values for nameservers to be changed."
]
}
]
}
}]]></sourcecode>
<section anchor="types-and-values">
<name>DNS Record Types and TTL Values</name>
<t>
The DNS record type mnemonics that appear as the member names in "<tt>values</tt>" objects <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be in all capitals and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be registered with IANA in <xref target="IANA-RRTYPES"/>.
TTL values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be unsigned integers in the range 0-2147483647 as per <xref section="8" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC2181"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="rdap-conformance">
<name>RDAP Conformance</name>
<t>
Servers returning responses containing TTL values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the string "<tt>ttl0</tt>" in the "<tt>rdapConformance</tt>" array.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="operational-considerations">
<name>Operational Considerations</name>
<section anchor="rdap-servers">
<name>RDAP Servers</name>
<t>
<!--[rfced] Is the intention to cite the names of the RFCs (option A)
or the protocol and extension names (option B)? Additionally,
please confirm if our updates to the latter half of the sentence
correctly reflect that it is the EPP TTL extension (RFC 9803)
that does not need to be implemented. Note that we also made
"server" plural.
Original:
This specification is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol [RFC5730] (EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL)
Values [RFC9803], but registry operators do not need to implement
that extension in their EPP server in order to implement this RDAP
extension.
Perhaps A (document titles):
This specification is complementary to "Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP)" [RFC5730] and "Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values" [RFC9803], but
registry operators do not need to implement the EPP extension
described in [RFC9803] in their EPP servers in order to implement
this RDAP extension.
or
Perhaps B (protocol/extension names):
This specification is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730] and the EPP Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live
(TTL) Values extension [RFC9803], but registry operators do not
need to implement that EPP extension in their EPP servers in order
to implement this RDAP extension.
-->
<!-- option B: I *think* I have updated the markup accordingly, but please feel free to correct as needed! Fine with the pluralisation of "servers". -->
This specification is complementary to the <xref target="RFC5730">Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)</xref> and the <xref target="RFC9803">EPP Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values</xref>,
but registry operators do not need to implement that extension in their EPP servers in order to implement this RDAP extension.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="rdap-clients">
<name>RDAP Clients</name>
<t>
Many RDAP clients make use of frameworks, which automatically "hydrate" objects using JSON data received in RDAP responses.
As a result, RDAP clients that use these frameworks should explicitly carve out the "<tt>values</tt>" member of "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" members.
</t>
<t>
Since the list of record types appearing in "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>" members may change with time, clients that implement this extension <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> accept
responses containing values for all valid DNS record types and <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> periodically update the list of valid DNS record types to align with <xref target="IANA-RRTYPES"/>, to avoid discarding a recently added record type.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations">
<name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>
IANA has registered the following value in the "RDAP Extensions" registry <xref target="IANA-RDAP-EXTENSIONS"/>:</t>
<dl spacing="compact" newline="false">
<dt>Extension Identifier:</dt><dd>"<tt>ttl0</tt>"</dd>
<dt>Registry Operator:</dt><dd>Any</dd>
<dt>Specification:</dt><dd>RFC 10037</dd>
<dt>Contact:</dt><dd>IETF <eref target="mailto:[email protected]" brackets="angle"/></dd>
<dt>Intended Usage:</dt><dd>This extension describes how DNS TTL values can be included in RDAP responses.</dd>
</dl>
</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations">
<name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>
Security services for the extension specified in this document are described in <xref format="none" target="RFC7481">RFC 7481</xref> <xref target="STD95"/>.
</t>
<t>
This document only concerns itself with the representation of configured TTL values for domain and host objects.
The security implications of how those TTL values are determined, assigned, or modified within a registry system are out of scope. Readers are referred to <xref section="6" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9803"/> for further discussion.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references>
<name>References</name>
<references>
<name>Normative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2181.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9499.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml9/reference.STD.95.xml"/>
<reference anchor="IANA-RRTYPES" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters";>
<front>
<title>Resource Record (RR) TYPEs</title>
<author>
<organization>IANA</organization>
</author>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IANA-RDAP-EXTENSIONS" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions";>
<front>
<title>RDAP Extensions</title>
<author>
<organization>IANA</organization>
</author>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references>
<name>Informative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5730.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9803.xml"/>
</references>
</references>
<section anchor="thx" numbered="false">
<name>Acknowledgements</name>
<!--[rfced] In the Acknowledgements section, note that we removed
"Sarah Tarrant" as we don't normally include RPC staff names in
this section, especially since multiple editors help to process
the document.
-->
<!-- response: noted. -->
<t>
The author wishes to thank the following for their constructive feedback and advice during the development of this document: <contact fullname="Andy Newton"/>, <contact fullname="Pawel Kowalik"/>, <contact fullname="Maarten Wullink"/>, <contact fullname="Mohamed Boucadair"/>, <contact fullname="Vijay K. Gurbani"/>, <contact fullname="Di Ma"/>, <contact fullname="Nabeel Cocker"/>, <contact fullname="Ketan Talaulikar"/>, <contact fullname="Ralf Weber"/>, <contact fullname="Mike Bishop"/>, <contact fullname="Mahesh Jethanandani"/>, and <contact fullname="Ãric Vyncke"/>.</t>
</section>
<!--[rfced] FYI: We have added an expansion for the following
abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
Please review this and each expansion in the document
carefully to ensure correctness.
Delegation Signer (DS)
-->
<!-- response: fine by me. -->
<!--[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
<!-- response: I have reviewed and did not see anything that needed changing. -->
</back>
</rfc>--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
