Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow
draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow
Network Working Group G. Lozano
Internet-Draft ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track Jun 1, 2020
Expires: December 3, 2020
Registry Data Escrow Specification
draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-10
Abstract
This document specifies the format and contents of data escrow
deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries. The
specification is designed to be independent of the underlying objects
that are being escrowed and therefore it could also be used for
purposes other than domain name registries.
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 December 3, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Root element <deposit> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits . . . . 8
6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 17
13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 17
13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . 17
13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . 17
13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . 18
13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06 . . . . . . 18
13.19. Changes from version REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07 . . . . . . 18
13.20. Changes from version REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08 . . . . . . 18
13.21. Changes from version REGEXT 08 to REGEXT 09 . . . . . . 19
13.22. Changes from version REGEXT 09 to REGEXT 10 . . . . . . 19
14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically
submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent. These
deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume
operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling
to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, for a
domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would
include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g.,
names, contacts, name servers, etc.
The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration
services, for the benefit of Internet users. The beneficiaries of a
registry are not just those registering information there, but also
the users of services relying on the registry data.
In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is
a requirement for generic top-level domains (e.g., Specification 2 of
the ICANN Base Registry Agreement, see [ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]) and
some country code top-level domain managers are also currently
escrowing data. There is also a similar requirement for ICANN-
accredited domain registrars.
This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent
of the objects being escrowed. An independent specification is
required for each type of registry/set of objects that is expected to
be escrowed.
The format for data escrow deposits is specified using the Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] and
XML Schema notation as described in [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
and [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028].
Readers are advised to read the terminology section carefully to
understand the precise meanings of Differential and Incremental
Deposits as the definitions used in this document are different from
the definitions typically used in the domain of data backups.
2. Terminology
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.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
Deposit. Deposits can be of three kinds: Full, Differential or
Incremental. For all kinds of deposits, the universe of registry
objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary
in order to offer the registry services.
Differential Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions
involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous
Full, Incremental or Differential Deposit, as the case may be.
Differential Deposit files will contain information from all database
objects that were added, modified or deleted since the previous
deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark.
Domain Name. See definition of Domain name in [RFC8499].
Escrow Agent. The organization designated by the registry or the
third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data escrow deposits
from the registry.
Full Deposit. Contains the registry data that reflects the current
and complete registry database and will consist of data that reflects
the state of the registry as of a defined Timeline Watermark for the
deposit.
Incremental Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions
involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous
Full Deposit. Incremental Deposit files will contain information
from all database objects that were added, modified or deleted since
the previous Full Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline
Watermark. If the Timeline Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were
to cover (i.e., one or more Incremental or Differential Deposits
exist for the period between the Timeline Watermark of a Full and an
Incremental or Differential Deposit) the Timeline Watermark of
another Incremental or Differential Deposit since the last Full
Deposit, the more recent deposit MUST contain all the transactions of
the earlier deposit.
Registrar. See definition of Registrar in [RFC8499].
Registry. See definition of Registry in [RFC8499].
Third-Party Beneficiary. Is the organization that, under
extraordinary circumstances, would receive the escrow deposits the
registry transferred to the escrow agent. This organization could be
a backup registry, registry regulator, contracting party of the
registry, etc.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
Timeline Watermark. Point in time on which to base the collecting of
database objects for a deposit. Deposits are expected to be
consistent to that point in time.
Top-Level Domain. See definition of Top-Level Domain (TLD) in
[RFC8499].
3. Problem Scope
In the past few years, the issue of registry continuity has been
carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. Various
organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business
continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize.
One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD
space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the continuity of
registry services in the extreme case of registry failure.
So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its
own specification. It is anticipated that more registries will be
implementing escrow especially with an increasing number of domain
registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue.
It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for
Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its
deposits.
While the domain name industry has been the main target for this
specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible.
Specifications covering the objects used by registration
organizations shall identify the format and contents of the deposits
a registry has to make, such that a different registry would be able
to rebuild the registration services of the former, without its help,
in a timely manner, with minimum disruption to its users.
Since the details of the registration services provided vary from
registry to registry, specifications covering the objects used by
registration organizations shall provide mechanisms that allow its
extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of the
registration services.
Given the requirement for confidentiality and the importance of
accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer
registration services, parties using this specification shall define
confidentiality and integrity mechanisms for handling the
registration data.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
Specifications covering the objects used by registration
organizations shall not include in the specification transient
objects that can be recreated by the new registry, particularly those
of delicate confidentiality, e.g., DNSSEC KSK/ZSK private keys.
Details that are a matter of policy should be identified as such for
the benefit of the implementers.
Non-technical issues concerning data escrow, such as whether to
escrow data and under which purposes the data may be used, are
outside of scope of this document.
Parties using this specification shall use a signaling mechanism to
control the transmission, reception and validation of data escrow
deposits. The definition of such a signaling mechanism is out of the
scope of this document.
4. Conventions Used in This Document
The XML namespace prefix "rde" is used for the namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0", but implementations MUST NOT depend
on it; instead, they should employ a proper namespace-aware XML
parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
The XML namespace prefix "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" with the
corresponding namespaces "urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and
"urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" are used as example data
escrow objects.
4.1. Date and Time
Numerous fields indicate "dates", such as the creation and expiry
dates for objects. These fields SHALL contain timestamps indicating
the date and time in UTC, specified in Internet Date/Time Format (see
[RFC3339], Section 5.6) with the time-offset specified as "Z".
5. Protocol Description
The following is a format for data escrow deposits as produced by a
registry. The deposits are represented in XML. Only the format of
the objects deposited is defined. Nothing is prescribed about the
method used to transfer such deposits between the registry and the
escrow agent or vice versa.
The protocol intends to be object agnostic allowing the "overload" of
abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute of the XML
Schema element to define the actual elements of an object to be
escrowed.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the
identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted or added/
modified.
5.1. Root element <deposit>
The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is
<deposit>.
The <deposit> element contains the following attributes:
o A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of
deposit:
* FULL: Full.
* INCR: Incremental.
* DIFF: Differential.
o A REQUIRED "id" attribute that is used to uniquely identify the
escrow deposit. Each registry is responsible for maintaining its
own escrow deposits' identifier space to ensure uniqueness.
o A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous
Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This attribute is
REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in
Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full
Deposits ("FULL" type).
o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the
escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving
party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the
registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is
generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0". If a
deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to
"1", and so on.
The <deposit> element contains the following the child elements:
5.1.1. Child <watermark> element
A REQUIRED <watermark> element contains the date-time corresponding
to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
5.1.2. Child <rdeMenu> element
This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow
deposit.
A REQUIRED <rdeMenu> element contains the following child elements:
o A REQUIRED <version> element that identifies the RDE protocol
version, this value MUST be 1.0.
o One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs
representing the <contents> and <deletes> element objects.
5.1.3. Child <deletes> element
For Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects
that have been deleted since the previous deposit of any type. For
Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that
have been deleted since the previous Full Deposit.
This section of the deposit MUST NOT be present in Full Deposits.
5.1.4. Child <contents> element
For Full Deposits this element contains all objects. For
Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that
have been added or modified since the previous deposit of any type.
For Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects
that have been added or modified since the previous Full Deposit.
5.2. Rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits
When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding
the registry from data escrow deposits), the relative order of the
<deletes> and <contents> elements is important because dependencies
may exist between the objects. All the <deletes> elements MUST be
applied first, in the order that they appear. All the <contents>
elements MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear.
If an object is present in the <contents> or <deletes> section of
several deposits (e.g. Full and Differential) the registry data from
the latest deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be
used when rebuilding the registry. An object SHOULD NOT exist
multiple times either in the <contents> or <deletes> elements in a
single deposit.
When rebuilding a registry, the <deletes> section MUST be ignored if
present in a Full Deposit.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
6. Formal Syntax
RDE is specified in XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented
here is a complete schema representation of RDE suitable for
automated validation of RDE XML instances.
The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to
note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration
purposes.
6.1. RDE Schema
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<annotation>
<documentation>
Registry Data Escrow schema
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- Root element -->
<element name="deposit" type="rde:escrowDepositType"/>
<!-- RDE types -->
<complexType name="escrowDepositType">
<sequence>
<element name="watermark" type="dateTime"/>
<element name="rdeMenu" type="rde:rdeMenuType"/>
<element name="deletes" type="rde:deletesType" minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="contents" type="rde:contentsType" minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="type" type="rde:depositTypeType" use="required"/>
<attribute name="id" type="rde:depositIdType" use="required"/>
<attribute name="prevId" type="rde:depositIdType"/>
<attribute name="resend" type="unsignedShort" default="0"/>
</complexType>
<!-- Menu type -->
<complexType name="rdeMenuType">
<sequence>
<element name="version" type="rde:versionType"/>
<element name="objURI" type="anyURI" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
</complexType>
<!-- Deletes Type -->
<complexType name="deletesType">
<sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:delete"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="delete" type="rde:deleteType" abstract="true" />
<complexType name="deleteType">
<complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType"/>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<!-- Contents Type -->
<complexType name="contentsType">
<sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:content"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="content" type="rde:contentType" abstract="true" />
<complexType name="contentType">
<complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType"/>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<!-- Type of deposit -->
<simpleType name="depositTypeType">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="FULL"/>
<enumeration value="INCR"/>
<enumeration value="DIFF"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Deposit identifier type -->
<simpleType name="depositIdType">
<restriction base="token">
<pattern value="\w{1,13}"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- A RDE version number is a dotted pair of decimal numbers -->
<simpleType name="versionType">
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
<restriction base="token">
<pattern value="[1-9]+\.[0-9]+"/>
<enumeration value="1.0"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</schema>
END
7. Internationalization Considerations
Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native
support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and
its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML
processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes
provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use
of an "encoding" attribute in an <?xml?> declaration, use of UTF-8 is
RECOMMENDED.
8. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI
assignments have been registered by the IANA.
Registration request for the RDE namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG <regext@ietf.org>
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove the email address from the RFC
after IANA records it.
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the RDE XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG <regext@ietf.org>
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove the email address from the RFC
after IANA records it.
See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
9. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
RFC 7942 [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 RFC 7942
[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 RFC 7942 [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".
9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space
Organization: ICANN
Name: ICANN Registry Agreement
Description: the ICANN Base Registry Agreement requires Registries,
Data Escrow Agents, and ICANN to implement this specification. ICANN
receives daily notifications from Data Escrow Agents confirming that
more than 1,200 gTLDs are sending deposits that comply with this
specification. ICANN receives on a weekly basis per gTLD, from more
than 1,200 gTLD registries, a Bulk Registration Data Access file that
also complies with this specification. In addition, ICANN is aware
of Registry Service Provider transitions using data files that
conform to this specification.
Level of maturity: production.
Coverage: all aspects of this specification are implemented.
Version compatibility: versions 03 - 08 are known to be implemented.
Contact: gustavo.lozano@icann.org
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-
agreements-en
10. Security Considerations
This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used
in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only
specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a
registry from deposits without intervention from the original
registry.
Depending on local policies, some elements, or, most likely, the
whole deposit will be considered confidential. As such, the parties
SHOULD take all the necessary precautions such as encrypting the data
at rest and in transit to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private
data. Regardless of the precautions taken by the parties regarding
data at rest and in transit, authentication credentials MUST NOT be
escrowed.
Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is
also of the utmost importance. The escrow agent MUST properly
authenticate the identity of the registry before accepting data
escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the registry MUST authenticate
the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any data.
Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent MUST use integrity
checking mechanisms to ensure the data transmitted is what the source
intended. Validation of the contents by the escrow agent is
RECOMMENDED to ensure not only that the file was transmitted
correctly from the registry, but also that the contents are
"meaningful".
Note: if Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used when providing an
escrow services, the recommendations in [RFC7525] MUST be
implemented.
11. Privacy Considerations
This specification defines a format that may be used to escrow
personal data. The process of data escrow is governed by a legal
document agreed by the parties, and such legal document must ensure
that privacy-sensitive and/or personal data receives the required
protection.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
12. Acknowledgments
Special suggestions that have been incorporated into this document
were provided by James Gould, Edward Lewis, Jaap Akkerhuis, Lawrence
Conroy, Marc Groeneweg, Michael Young, Chris Wright, Patrick Mevzek,
Stephen Morris, Scott Hollenbeck, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Warren Kumari,
Paul Hoffman, Vika Mpisane, Bernie Hoeneisen, Jim Galvin, Andrew
Sullivan, Hiro Hotta, Christopher Browne, Daniel Kalchev, David
Conrad, James Mitchell, Francisco Obispo, Bhadresh Modi and Alexander
Mayrhofer.
Shoji Noguchi and Francisco Arias participated as co-authors until
version 07 providing invaluable support for this document.
13. Change History
[[RFC Editor: Please remove this section.]]
13.1. Changes from 00 to 01
1. Included DNSSEC elements as part of the basic <domain> element
as defined in RFC 5910.
2. Included RGP elements as part of the basic <domain> element as
defined in RFC 3915.
3. Added support for IDNs and IDN variants.
4. Eliminated the <summary> element and all its subordinate
objects, except <watermarkDate>.
5. Renamed <watermarkDate> to <watermark> and included it directly
under root element.
6. Renamed root element to <deposit>.
7. Added <authinfo> element under <registrar> element.
8. Added <roid> element under <registrar> element.
9. Reversed the order of the <deletes> and <contents> elements.
10. Removed <rdeDomain:status> minOccurs="0".
11. Added <extension> element under root element.
12. Added <extension> element under <contact> element.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
13. Removed <period> element from <domain> element.
14. Populated the "Security Considerations" section.
15. Populated the "Internationalization Considerations" section.
16. Populated the "Extension Example" section.
17. Added <deDate> element under <domain> element.
18. Added <icannID> element under <registrar> element.
19. Added <eppParams> element under root element.
20. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions.
13.2. Changes from 01 to 02
1. Added definition for "canonical" in the "IDN variants Handling"
section.
2. Clarified that "blocked" and "reserved" IDN variants are
optional.
3. Made <rdeRegistrar:authInfo> optional.
4. Introduced substitutionGroup as the mechanism for extending the
protocol.
5. Moved <eppParams> element to be child of <contents>.
6. Text improvements in the Introduction, Terminology, and Problem
Scope per Jay's suggestion.
7. Removed <trDate> from <rdeDomain> and added <trnData> instead,
which include all the data from the last (pending/processed)
transfer request.
8. Removed <trDate> from <rdeContact> and added <trnData> instead,
which include all the data from the last (pending/processed)
transfer request.
9. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
13.3. Changes from 02 to 03
1. Separated domain name objects from protocol.
2. Moved <extension> elements to be child of <deletes> and
<contents>, additionally removed <extension> element from
<rdeDomain>,<rdeHost>, <rdeContact>,<rdeRegistrar> and <rdeIDN>
elements.
3. Modified the definition of <rde:id> and <rde:prevId>.
4. Added <rdeMenu> element under <deposit> element.
5. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions.
13.4. Changes from 03 to 04
1. Removed <eppParams> objects.
2. Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section.
3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions.
13.5. Changes from 04 to 05
1. Fixes to the XSD.
2. Extension Guidelines moved to dnrd-mappings draft.
3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions.
13.6. Changes from 05 to 06
1. Fix resend definition.
13.7. Changes from 06 to 07
1. Editorial updates.
2. schemaLocation removed from RDE Schema.
13.8. Changes from 07 to 08
1. Ping update.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
13.9. Changes from 08 to 09
1. Ping update.
13.10. Changes from 09 to 10
1. Implementation Status section was added.
13.11. Changes from 10 to 11
1. Ping update.
13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00
1. Internet Draft (I-D) adopted by the REGEXT WG.
13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01
1. Privacy consideration section was added.
13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02
1. Updated the Security Considerations section to make the language
normative.
2. Updated the rde XML schema to remove the dependency with the
eppcom namespace reference.
3. Editorial updates.
4. Remove the reference to RFC 5730.
5. Added complete examples of deposits.
13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03
1. The <contents> section changed from MUST to SHOULD, in order to
accommodate an Incremental or Differential Deposit that only
includes deletes.
2. Editorial updates.
13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04
1. Moved [RFC8499] to the Normative References section.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05
1. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
UNo6YxapgjyerAYv0223zEuzjFk
2. The examples of deposits were moved to their own sections.
3. <deposit> elements definition moved to section 5.1.
4. The DIFF example was modified to make it more representative of a
differential deposit.
13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06
1. Normative references for XLM, XML Schema added.
2. Text added to define that version MUST be 1.0.
3. Normative SHOULD replaced should in the second paragraph in the
security section.
13.19. Changes from version REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07
1. Registration contact changed in section 8.
13.20. Changes from version REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08
1. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/hDLz2ym4oR-ukA4Fm-
QJ8FzaxxE
2. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/780Xw-
z1RMRb79nmZ6ABmRTo1fU
3. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
YnPnrSedrCcgQ2AXbjBTuQzqMds
4. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
BiV0NHi_k7cYwTiLdLwVgqEcFuo
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
13.21. Changes from version REGEXT 08 to REGEXT 09
1. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/x_8twvi-
MS4dDDRfAZfNJH92UaQ
2. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
B3QTxUCWUE4R_QharAQlA3041j0
13.22. Changes from version REGEXT 09 to REGEXT 10
1. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
UaMNvl1xh60ldjpqHHYc3TNsfhg
14. Example of a Full Deposit
Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and
rdeObj2:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="FULL"
id="20191018001">
<rde:watermark>2019-10-17T23:59:59Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0</rde:objURI>
</rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>fsh8013-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents>
</rde:deposit>
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
15. Example of a Differential Deposit
Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects
rdeObj1 and rdeObj2:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="DIFF"
id="20191019001" prevId="20191018001">
<rde:watermark>2019-10-18T23:59:59Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0</rde:objURI>
</rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents>
</rde:deposit>
16. Example of a Incremental Deposit
Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects
rdeObj1 and rdeObj2:
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="INCR"
id="20200317001" prevId="20200314001">
<rde:watermark>2020-03-16T23:59:59Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0</rde:objURI>
</rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:deletes>
<rdeObj1:delete>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE1</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:delete>
<rdeObj2:delete>
<rdeObj2:id>fsh8013-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:delete>
</rde:deletes>
<rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents>
</rde:deposit>
17. References
17.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition) REC-xml-20081126", November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn,
"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition REC-
xmlschema-1-20041028", October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
Second Edition REC-xmlschema-2-20041028", October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/>.
17.2. Informative References
[ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]
ICANN, "Base Registry Agreement 2017-07-31", July 2017,
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/
agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Author's Address
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2020
Gustavo Lozano
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles 90292
United States of America
Phone: +1.310.823.9358
Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org
Lozano Expires December 3, 2020 [Page 23]
