RFC 8334
Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Pages: 58
Proposed Standard
Proposed Standard
Part 1 of 3 – Pages 1 to 16
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Gould Request for Comments: 8334 VeriSign, Inc. Category: Standards Track W. Tan ISSN: 2070-1721 Cloud Registry G. Brown CentralNic Ltd March 2018 Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)Abstract
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension mapping for the provisioning and management of domain name registrations and applications during the launch of a domain name registry. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8334. 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Object Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Application Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Validator Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Launch Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3.1. Trademark Claims Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Status Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.1. State Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.5. Poll Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.6. Mark Validation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.6.1. <launch:codeMark> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.6.2. <mark:mark> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.6.3. Digital Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.6.3.1. <smd:signedMark> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.6.3.2. <smd:encodedSignedMark> Element . . . . . . . . . 16 3. EPP Command Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1. EPP <check> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1.1. Claims Check Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1.2. Availability Check Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.1.3. Trademark Check Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2. EPP <info> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3. EPP <create> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3.1. Sunrise Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3.2. Claims Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.3.3. General Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.3.4. Mixed Create Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.3.5. Create Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.4. EPP <update> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.5. EPP <delete> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.6. EPP <renew> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.7. EPP <transfer> Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.1. Launch Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1. Introduction
This document describes an extension mapping for version 1.0 of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730]. This EPP mapping specifies a flexible schema that can be used to implement several common use cases related to the provisioning and management of domain name registrations and applications during the launch of a domain name registry. It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes as they begin operation to facilitate allocation of domain names, often according to special rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period. Multiple launch phases and multiple models are supported to enable the launch of a domain name registry. Server policy determines what is supported and validated. Communication of the server policy is typically performed using an out-of-band mechanism that is not specified in this document. The EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731] is designed for the steady- state operation of a registry. During a launch period, the model in place may be different from what is defined in the EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731]. For example, registries often accept multiple applications for the same domain name during the "sunrise" launch phase, referred to as a Launch Application. A Launch Registration refers to a registration made during a launch phase when the server uses a "first-come, first-served" model. Even in a "first-come, first-served" model, additional steps and information might be required, such as trademark information. In addition, RFC 7848 [RFC7848] defines a registry interface for the Trademark Claims or "claims" launch phase that includes support for presenting a Trademark Claims Notice to the registrant. This document proposes an extension to the domain name mapping in order to provide a uniform interface for the management of Launch Applications and Launch Registrations in launch phases.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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. XML [W3C.REC-xml11-20060816] is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the character case presented in order to develop a conforming implementation.
In examples, "C:" represents lines sent by a protocol client and "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server. Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol. The use of "..." is used as shorthand for elements defined outside this document. A Launch Registration is a domain name registration during a launch phase when the server uses a "first-come, first-served" model. Only a single registration for a domain name can exist in the server at a time. A Launch Application represents the intent to register a domain name during a launch phase when the server accepts multiple applications for a domain name, and the server later selects one of the applications to allocate as a registration. Many Launch Applications for a domain name can exist in the server at a time. The XML namespace prefix "launch" is used for the namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0", but implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents. The XML namespace prefix "smd" is used for the namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0" [RFC7848], but implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents. The XML namespace prefix "mark" is used for the namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0" [RFC7848], but implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.2. Object Attributes
This extension adds additional elements to the EPP domain name mapping [RFC5731]. Only those new elements are described here.2.1. Application Identifier
Servers MAY allow multiple applications, referred to as a Launch Application, of the same domain name during its launch phase operations. Upon receiving a valid <domain:create> command to create a Launch Application, the server MUST create an application object corresponding to the request, assign an application identifier for the Launch Application, set the pendingCreate status [RFC5731], and return the application identifier to the client with the
<launch:applicationID> element. In order to facilitate correlation, all subsequent launch operations on the Launch Application MUST be qualified by the previously assigned application identifier using the <launch:applicationID> element.2.2. Validator Identifier
The Validator Identifier is unique to the server and is the identifier for a Trademark Validator, which validates marks and has a repository of validated marks. The OPTIONAL "validatorID" attribute is used to define the Validator Identifier of the Trademark Validator. Registries MAY support more than one third-party Trademark Validator. The unique set of Validator Identifier values supported by the server is up to server policy. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) is the default Trademark Validator and is reserved for the Validator Identifier of "tmch". If the ICANN TMCH is not used or multiple Trademark Validators are used, the Validator Identifier MUST be defined using the "validatorID" attribute. The Validator Identifier MAY be related to one or more issuer identifiers of the <mark:id> and <smd:id> elements defined in [RFC7848]. Both the Validator Identifier and the Issuer Identifier used MUST be unique in the server. If the ICANN TMCH is not used or multiple Trademark Validators are used, the server MUST define the list of supported validator identifiers and MUST make this information available to clients using a mutually acceptable, out-of- band mechanism. The Validator Identifier may define a non-Trademark Validator that supports a form of claims, where claims and a Validator Identifier can be used for purposes beyond trademarks.2.3. Launch Phases
The server MAY support multiple launch phases sequentially or simultaneously. The <launch:phase> element MUST be included by the client to define the target launch phase of the command. The server SHOULD validate the phase and MAY validate the sub-phase of the <launch:phase> element against the active phase and OPTIONAL sub- phase of the server, and return an EPP error result code of 2306 [RFC5730] if there is a mismatch. The following launch phase values are defined: sunrise: The phase during which trademark holders can submit registrations or applications with trademark information that can be validated by the server.
landrush: A post-"sunrise" launch phase when non-trademark holders
are allowed to register domain names with steps taken to address a
large volume of initial registrations.
claims: The phase, as defined in Section 2.3.1, in which a claims
notice must be displayed to a prospective registrant of a domain
name that matches trademarks.
open: A phase that is also referred to as "steady state". Servers
may require additional trademark protection during this phase.
custom: A custom server launch phase that is defined using the
"name" attribute.
For extensibility, the <launch:phase> element includes an OPTIONAL
"name" attribute that can define a sub-phase or the full name of the
phase when the <launch:phase> element has the "custom" value. For
example, the "claims" launch phase could have two sub-phases that
include "landrush" and "open".
Launch phases MAY overlap to support the "claims" launch phase,
defined in Section 2.3.1, and to support a traditional "landrush"
launch phase. The overlap of the "claims" and "landrush" launch
phases SHOULD be handled by setting "claims" as the <launch:phase>
value and setting "landrush" as the sub-phase with the "name"
attribute. For example, the <launch:phase> element should be
<launch:phase name="landrush">claims</launch:phase>.
2.3.1. Trademark Claims Phase
The Trademark Claims Phase is when a claims notice must be displayed
to a prospective registrant of a domain name that matches trademarks.
See [ICANN-TMCH] for additional details of trademark claims handling.
The source of the trademarks is a Trademark Validator, and the source
of the claims notice information is a Claims Notice Information
Service (CNIS), which may be directly linked to a Trademark
Validator. The client interfaces with 1) the server to determine if
a trademark exists for a domain name, 2) a CNIS to get the claims
notice information, and 3) the server to pass the claims notice
acceptance information in a create command. This document supports
the Trademark Claims Phase in two ways, including:
Claims Check Form: Is defined in Section 3.1.1 and is used to
determine whether or not there are any matching trademarks for a
domain name. If there is at least one matching trademark that
exists for the domain name, a claims key is returned. The mapping
of domain names and the claims keys is based on an out-of-band
interface between the server and the Trademark Validator. The
CNIS associated with the claims key Validator Identifier
(Section 2.2) MUST accept the claims key as the basis for
retrieving the claims information.
Claims Create Form: Is defined in Section 3.3.2 and is used to pass
the claims notice acceptance information in a create command. The
notice identifier (<launch:noticeID>) format, validation rules,
and server processing is up to the interface between the server
and the Trademark Validator. The CNIS associated with the
Validator Identifier (Section 2.2) MUST generate a notice
identifier compliant with the <launch:noticeID> element.
The following shows the Trademark Claims Phase registration flow: .------------. .--------. .--------. .------. | Registrant | | Client | | Server | | CNIS | '------------' '--------' '--------' '------' | Request Domain | | | | Registration | | | |--------------->| Domain Check | | | |--------------------------->| | | Domain | Domain Unavailable .------------. | | Unavailable |<---------------------( Available? ) | |<---------------| No '------------' | | | Domain Available | Yes | | |<---------------------------| | | | Domain Claims Check | | | |--------------------------->| | | | .---------. | | | Claims Don't Exist / Does \ | | |<--------------------( Domain have ) | | | No \ Claims? / | | | '---------' | | | Domain Create | | Yes | | |--------------------------->| | | | Domain | Domain Registered | | | | Registered |<---------------------------| | | |<---------------| | | | | | | | Claims Exist with Claims Keys | | | |<------------------------------' | | | | .-----. | | Request Claims Info with Claims Key | |Abort| | Display |-------------------------------------->| '-----' | Claims | Return Claims Info | ^ | Notice |<--------------------------------------| | No |<---------------| | | .------. Yes | | '-( Ack? )----------->| Domain Claims Create Form | | '------' |--------------------------->| | | Registration | Error .----------------------. | | Error |<-----------( Validation Successful? ) | |<---------------| No '----------------------' | | | | Yes | | Domain | Domain Registered | | | Registered |<---------------------------| | |<---------------| | | Figure 1
2.4. Status Values
A Launch Application or Launch Registration object MAY have a launch status value. The <launch:status> element is used to convey the launch status pertaining to the object, beyond what is specified in the object mapping. A Launch Application or Launch Registration MUST set the "pendingCreate" status [RFC5731] if a launch status is supported and is not one of the final statuses ("allocated" and "rejected"). The following status values are defined using the required "s" attribute: pendingValidation: The initial state of a newly created application or registration object. The application or registration requires validation, but the validation process has not yet completed. validated: The application or registration meets relevant registry rules. invalid: The application or registration does not validate according to registry rules. Server policies permitting, it may transition back into "pendingValidation" for revalidation, after modifications are made to ostensibly correct attributes that caused the validation failure. pendingAllocation: The allocation of the application or registration is pending based on the results of some out-of-band process (for example, an auction). allocated: The object corresponding to the application or registration has been provisioned. This is a possible end state of an application or registration object. rejected: The application or registration object was not provisioned. This is a possible end state of an application or registration object. custom: A custom status that is defined using the "name" attribute. Each status value MAY be accompanied by a string of human-readable text that describes the rationale for the status applied to the object. The OPTIONAL "lang" attribute, as defined in [RFC5646], MAY be present to identify the language if the negotiated value is something other than the default value of "en" (English).
For extensibility, the <launch:status> element includes an OPTIONAL "name" attribute that can define a sub-status or the full name of the status when the status value is "custom". The server SHOULD use one of the non-"custom" status values. Status values MAY be skipped. For example, an application or registration MAY immediately start at the "allocated" status, or an application or registration MAY skip the "pendingAllocation" status. If the launch phase does not require validation of a request, an application or registration MAY immediately skip to "pendingAllocation".
2.4.1. State Transition
The transitions between the states is a matter of server policy. This diagram defines one possible set of permitted transitions. | request | | +--------------------------+ | | | v v | +-------------------+ | | | | | pendingValidation +--------------+ | | | | | +---------+---------+ | | | | | | | | v v | +-----------+ +---------+ | | | | | | | validated | | invalid +--+ | | | | +-----+-----+ +----+----+ | | | | v | +-------------------+ | | | | | pendingAllocation +-----------+ | | | | | +---------+---------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | v v v +---------+ +--------+ / \ / \ | allocated | | rejected | \ / \ / +---------+ +--------+ Figure 2
2.5. Poll Messaging
A Launch Application MUST be handled as an EPP domain name object as specified in RFC 5731 [RFC5731], with the "pendingCreate" status and launch status values defined in Section 2.4. A Launch Registration MAY be handled as an EPP domain name object as specified in RFC 5731 [RFC5731], with the "pendingCreate" status and launch status values defined in Section 2.4. As a Launch Application or Launch Registration transitions between the status values defined in Section 2.4, the server SHOULD insert poll messages, per [RFC5730], for the applicable intermediate statuses, including the "pendingValidation", "validated", "pendingAllocation", and "invalid" statuses, using the <domain:infData> element with the <launch:infData> extension. The <domain:infData> element MAY contain non-mandatory information, like contact and name server information. Also, further extensions that would normally be included in the response of a <domain:info> command, per [RFC5731], MAY be included. For the final statuses, including the "allocated" and "rejected" statuses, the server MUST insert a <domain:panData> poll message, per [RFC5731], with the <launch:infData> extension. The following is an example poll message for a Launch Application that has transitioned to the "pendingAllocation" state. S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"> S: <response> S: <result code="1301"> S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg> S: </result> S: <msgQ count="5" id="12345"> S: <qDate>2013-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate> S: <msg>Application pendingAllocation.</msg> S: </msgQ> S: <resData> S: <domain:infData S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"> S: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name> S: ... S: </domain:infData> S: </resData> S: <extension> S: <launch:infData S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"> S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase> S: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID> S: <launch:status s="pendingAllocation"/> S: </launch:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
The following is an example <domain:panData> poll message for an
"allocated" Launch Application.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ count="5" id="12345">
S: <qDate>2013-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Application successfully allocated.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:panData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name paResult="1">domain.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:paTRID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </domain:paTRID>
S: <domain:paDate>2013-04-04T22:00:00.0Z</domain:paDate>
S: </domain:panData>
S: </resData>
S: <extension>
S: <launch:infData
S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0">
S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase>
S: <launch:applicationID>abc123</launch:applicationID>
S: <launch:status s="allocated"/>
S: </launch:infData>
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
The following is an example <domain:panData> poll message for an "allocated" Launch Registration. S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"> S: <response> S: <result code="1301"> S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg> S: </result> S: <msgQ count="5" id="12345"> S: <qDate>2013-04-04T22:01:00.0Z</qDate> S: <msg>Registration successfully allocated.</msg> S: </msgQ> S: <resData> S: <domain:panData S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"> S: <domain:name paResult="1">domain.example</domain:name> S: <domain:paTRID> S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID> S: <svTRID>54321-XYZ</svTRID> S: </domain:paTRID> S: <domain:paDate>2013-04-04T22:00:00.0Z</domain:paDate> S: </domain:panData> S: </resData> S: <extension> S: <launch:infData S: xmlns:launch="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0"> S: <launch:phase>sunrise</launch:phase> S: <launch:status s="allocated"/> S: </launch:infData> S: </extension> S: <trID> S: <clTRID>BCD-23456</clTRID> S: <svTRID>65432-WXY</svTRID> S: </trID> S: </response> S:</epp>2.6. Mark Validation Models
A server MUST support at least one of the following models for validating trademark information: code: Use of a mark code by itself to validate that the mark matches the domain name. This model is supported using the <launch:codeMark> element with just the <launch:code> element.
mark: The mark information is passed without any other validation
element. The server will use some custom form of validation to
validate that the mark information is authentic. This model is
supported using the <launch:codeMark> element with just the
<mark:mark> (Section 2.6.2) element.
code with mark: A code is used along with the mark information by
the server to validate the mark utilizing an external party. The
code represents some form of secret that matches the mark
information passed. This model is supported using the
<launch:codeMark> element that contains both the <launch:code> and
the <mark:mark> (Section 2.6.2) elements.
signed mark: The mark information is digitally signed as described
in the Digital Signature section (Section 2.6.3). The digital
signature can be directly validated by the server using the public
key of the external party that created the signed mark using its
private key. This model is supported using the <smd:signedMark>
(Section 2.6.3.1) and <smd:encodedSignedMark> (Section 2.6.3.2)
elements.
More than one <launch:codeMark>, <smd:signedMark> (Section 2.6.3.1),
or <smd:encodedSignedMark> (Section 2.6.3.2) element MAY be
specified. The maximum number of marks per domain name is up to
server policy.
2.6.1. <launch:codeMark> Element
The <launch:codeMark> element is used by the "code", "mark", and
"code with mark" validation models and has the following child
elements:
<launch:code>: OPTIONAL mark code used to validate the <mark:mark>
(Section 2.6.2) information. The mark code is a mark-specific
secret that the server can verify against a third party. The
OPTIONAL "validatorID" attribute is the Validator Identifier
(Section 2.2) whose value indicates which Trademark Validator the
code originated from, with no default value.
<mark:mark>: OPTIONAL mark information with child elements defined
in the Mark section (Section 2.6.2).
The following is an example <launch:codeMark> element with both a <launch:code> and <mark:mark> (Section 2.6.2) element. <launch:codeMark> <launch:code validatorID="sample"> 49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</launch:code> <mark:mark xmlns:mark="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mark-1.0"> ... </mark:mark> </launch:codeMark>2.6.2. <mark:mark> Element
A <mark:mark> element describes an applicant's prior right to a given domain name that is used with the "mark", "mark with code", and "signed mark" validation models. The <mark:mark> element is defined in [RFC7848]. A new mark format can be supported by creating a new XML schema for the mark that has an element that substitutes for the <mark:abstractMark> element from [RFC7848].2.6.3. Digital Signature
Digital signatures MAY be used by the server to validate the mark information, when using the "signed mark" validation model with the <smd:signedMark> (Section 2.6.3.1) and <smd:encodedSignedMark> (Section 2.6.3.2) elements. When using digital signatures, the server MUST validate the digital signature.2.6.3.1. <smd:signedMark> Element
The <smd:signedMark> element contains the digitally signed mark information. The <smd:signedMark> element is defined in [RFC7848]. A new signed mark format can be supported by creating a new XML schema for the signed mark that has an element that substitutes for the <smd:abstractSignedMark> element from [RFC7848].2.6.3.2. <smd:encodedSignedMark> Element
The <smd:encodedSignedMark> element contains an encoded form of the digitally signed <smd:signedMark> (Section 2.6.3.1) element. The <smd:encodedSignedMark> element is defined in [RFC7848]. A new encoded signed mark format can be supported by creating a new XML schema for the encoded signed mark that has an element that substitutes for the <smd:encodedSignedMark> element from [RFC7848].
(next page on part 2)