[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow

Network Working Group                                           F. Arias
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track                              S. Noguchi
Expires: September 10, 2012                                         JPRS
                                                           March 9, 2012


                   Registry Data Escrow Specification
              draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-03

Abstract

   This document specifies the format and contents of Data Escrow
   deposits targeted primarly for Domain Name Registries.  However, the
   specification was designed to be independent of the underlying
   objects that are being escrowed, therefore it could be used for 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 http://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 September 10, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://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



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Problem Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  General Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Date and Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.1.  Root element <deposit> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.2.  Child <watermark> element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.3.  Child <rdeMenu> element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.4.  Child <deletes> element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.5.  Child <contents> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Formal Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Extension Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   12. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     12.1. Changes from version 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     12.2. Changes from version 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     12.3. Changes from version 02 to 03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18




















Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


1.  Introduction

   Registry Data Escrow is the process by which an Internet 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 could not function and was
   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
   registration organization are not just those registering information
   there, but all relying parties that need to identify the owners of
   objects.

   In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is
   a requirement for the current generic top-level domains and it is
   expected to be for new registries.  Some country code top-level
   domain managers are also currently escrowing data.  There is also a
   similar requirement for ICANN's generic top-level domain accredited
   registrars.

   This document specifies a format for Data Escrow deposits independent
   of the objects being escrowed.  An specific profile extending this
   specification is required for each type of registry/set of objects
   that is expected to be escrowed.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119].

   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.




Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   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 the Watermark of another (Incremental or Differential)
   Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the former Deposit MUST contain
   the transactions of the later Deposit.

   REGISTRY.  A registration organization providing registration
   services for a certain type of objects, e.g., domain names, IP number
   resources, routing information.

   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.

   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.


3.  Problem Scope

   Starting a few years ago, the issue of Registry continuity has been
   carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space.  Various
   organizations have carried out a risk analysis 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 the advent of new TLDs, adding



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   complexity to this issue.

   The main motivation for deveoloping this solution is rooted on the
   domain name registry industry.  However, the specification has been
   designed to be as general as possible to allow other type of
   registries to use the base specification and develop their own
   profiles covering the objects used by other registration
   organizations.

   Therefore, it would seem beneficial to have a standardized
   specification for Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any
   Registry to submit its Deposits.

   A solution to the problem at hand SHALL clearly 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 list and details of the registration services vary from
   Registry to Registry, the solution SHALL provide mechanisms that
   allow its extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of
   the registration services.

   Given the confidentiality and importance of some of the information
   that would be handled in order to offer the registration services,
   the solution SHALL define confidentiality and integrity mechanisms
   when handling the registration data.

   The solution 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 around Data Escrow and the overall question of
   the use of Registry Data Escrow are outside of scope of this
   document.


4.  General Conventions

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 as specified in [RFC3339], with no offset



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   from the zero meridian.


5.  Protocol Description

   The following is a format for Data Escrow deposits as produced by a
   Registry.  Only the format of the objects deposited is defined,
   nothing is prescribed about the way 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 to define
   the actual elements of an object to be escrowed.

5.1.  Root element <deposit>

   The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposits is
   <deposit>.  This element contains the following child elements:
   watermark, deletes, contents, and extension.  The latter is explained
   in Section 7.  This element also contains the following attributes:

   o  A "type" attribute that MUST be used to identify the kind of
      deposit: FULL, INCR (Incremental) or DIFF (Differential).

   o  An "id" attribute that MUST be used to uniquely identify the
      escrow deposit.  Each registry is responsible for maintaining its
      own escrow deposits identifier space to ensure uniqueness, e.g.,
      using identifiers as described in Section 2.8 of [RFC5730].

   o  An OPTIONAL "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the
      previous incremental, differential or full escrow deposit.  This
      attribute MUST be used in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type).

   o  An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is used to identify resend
      attempts in case of previous failure.  The first time a deposit is
      attempted to be sent, the attribute MUST be zero; The second
      attempt to send (first resend attempt) the attribute MUST be set
      to one; and so on.  This would be used when for example, the
      previous deposit was not received complete, it failed verification
      at the receiving party, etc.

   Example of root element object:









Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rde:deposit
       xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
       ...
       type="FULL"
       id="20101017001" prevId="20101010001">
       <rde:watermark>2010-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
       <rde:deletes>
          ...
       </rde:deletes>
       <rde:contents>
          ...
       </rde:contents>
   </rde:deposit>

5.2.  Child <watermark> element

   A <watermark> element contains the data-time correspondent to the
   Timeline Watermark of the deposit.

   Example of <watermark> element object:


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rde:deposit
       xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
       ...
       type="FULL"
       id="20101017001" prevId="20101010001">
       <rde:watermark>2010-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
       ...
   </rde:deposit>

5.3.  Child <rdeMenu> element

   This element ...

   The <rdeMenu> element contains the following child elements:

   o  A <version> element that identify the RDE protocol version.

   o  One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs
      representing the <contetns> and <deletes> element objects.

   o  An OPTIONAL <rdeExtension> element that contains one or more
      <extURI> elements that contain namespace URIs representing object
      extensions.




Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   Example of <rdeMenu> element object:


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
    xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
    ...
    <rde:rdeMenu>
        <rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
        <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeContact-1.0</rde:objURI>
        <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeHost-1.0</rde:objURI>
        <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeDomain-1.0</rde:objURI>
        <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeRegistrar-1.0</rde:objURI>
        <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeIDN-1.0</rde:objURI>
        <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeEppParams-1.0</rde:objURI>
    </rde:rdeMenu>
    ...
</rde:deposit>

5.4.  Child <deletes> element

   This element SHOULD only be present in deposits of type Incremental
   or Differential.  It contains the list of objects that were deleted
   since the base previous deposit.  Each object in this section SHALL
   contain an ID for the object deleted.

   This section of the deposit SHOULD NOT be present in Full deposits.
   When rebuilding a registry it SHOULD be ignored if present in a Full
   deposit.

   The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the
   identificator to be used to reference the object to be deleted.

   Example of <deletes> element object:

















Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rde:deposit
       xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
       ...
       <rde:deletes>
           <rdeObj1:delete>
               <rdeObj1:name>foo.test</rdeObj1:name>
               <rdeObj1:name>bar.test</rdeObj1:name>
           </rdeObj1:delete>
           <rdeObj2:delete>
               <rdeObj2:id>sh8013-TEST</rdeObj2:id>
               <rdeObj2:id>co8013-TEST</rdeObj2:id>
           </rdeObj2:delete>
       </rde:deletes>
       ...
   </rde:deposit>

5.5.  Child <contents> element

   This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit.  It
   MUST be present in all type of deposits.  It contains the data for
   the objects to be escrowed.  The actual objects have to be specified
   individually.  This element MAY also contain an extension element
   allowing extending the format.

   In the case of Incremental or Differential deposits, the objects
   indicate whether the object was added or modified after the base
   previous deposit.  In order to distinguish between one and the other,
   it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in
   the base previous deposit.

   When applying Incremental or Differential deposits, i.e., when
   rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits, the order of the
   <deletes> and <contents> elements is important.  First, all the
   deletes MUST be applied and then the adds and updates, i.e., first
   apply what is in <deletes> and later what is in <contents>.

   Example of <contents> element object:













Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rde:deposit
       xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
       ...
       <rde:contents>
           ...
           <rdeObj1:contents>
               <rdeObj1:element1>
                   <rdeObj1:child1>Object1 specific.</rdeObj1:child1>
                   ...
               </rdeObj1:element1>
               <rdeObj2:element2>
                   <rdeObj2:field1>Object2 specific.</rdeObj2:field1>
                   ...
               </rdeObj2:element2>
           </rdeObj1:contents>
           ...
       </rde:contents>
       ...
   </rde:deposit>


6.  Formal Syntax

6.1.  RDE Schema

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
   of the code.  All rights reserved.

   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
   are met:

   o  Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

   o  Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
      the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
      distribution.

   o  Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
      names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
      products derived from this software without specific prior written
      permission.

   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
   "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
   A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
   OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
   SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
   LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
   DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
   THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
   (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
   OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

   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:rdeDeletesType"
          minOccurs="0"/>
         <element name="contents" type="rde:rdeContentsType"/>
       </sequence>
       <attribute name="type" type="rde:depositType"
        use="required"/>
       <attribute name="id" type="rde:depositIdType"
        use="required"/>
       <attribute name="prevId" type="rde:depositIdType"
        use="optional"/>
       <attribute name="resend" type="unsignedShort"
        default="0"/>



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


     </complexType>

     <complexType name="rdeContentsType">
       <sequence
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
         <element ref="rde:contents"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <element name="contents" type="rde:contentsType" abstract="true" />
     <complexType name="contentsType">
       <sequence
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
         <element ref="rde:content"/>
         <element name="extension" type="rde:extAnyType"
          minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <element name="content" type="rde:contentType" abstract="true" />
     <complexType name="contentType">
       <sequence/>
     </complexType>

     <complexType name="rdeDeletesType">
       <sequence
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
         <element ref="rde:delete"/>
         <element name="extension" type="rde:extAnyType"
           minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <element name="delete" type="rde:deleteType" abstract="true" />
     <complexType name="deleteType">
       <sequence/>
     </complexType>

     <!--
     Type of deposit
     -->
     <simpleType name="depositType">
       <restriction base="token">
         <enumeration value="FULL"/>
         <enumeration value="INCR"/>
         <enumeration value="DIFF"/>
       </restriction>
     </simpleType>



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


     <!--
     Deposit identifier type
     -->
     <simpleType name="depositIdType">
       <restriction base="token">
         <pattern value="\w{1,13}"/>
       </restriction>
     </simpleType>

     <!--
       Identifies available object services.
     -->
     <complexType name="rdeMenuType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="version" type="rde:versionType"
           maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         <element name="objURI" type="anyURI"
           maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
         <element name="svcExtension" type="rde:extURIType"
           minOccurs="0"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <!--
     Extension framework type
     -->
     <complexType name="extAnyType">
       <sequence>
         <any namespace="##other"
          maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <complexType name="extURIType">
       <sequence>
         <element name="extURI" type="anyURI"
           maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       </sequence>
     </complexType>

     <!--
       A RDE version number is a dotted pair of decimal numbers.
     -->
     <simpleType name="versionType">
       <restriction base="token">
         <pattern value="[1-9]+\.[0-9]+"/>
         <enumeration value="1.0"/>
       </restriction>



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


     </simpleType>

     <!--
     End of schema.
     -->
   </schema>
   END


7.  Extension Guidelines

   TBD


8.  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.


9.  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: See the "Author's Address" section of this
      document.

      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: See the "Author's Address" section of this
      document.





Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


      See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.


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 Registry
   transmitting the data to the Escrow Agent must take all the necessary
   precautions like encrypting the data itself and/or the transport
   channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data.

   It is also of the utmost importance the authentication of the parties
   passing data escrow deposit files.  The Escrow Agent should properly
   authenticate the identity of the Registry before accepting data
   escrow deposits.  In a similar manner, the Registry should
   authenticate the identity of the Escrow Agent before submitting any
   data.

   Additionally, the Registry and the Escrow Agent should 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 the file was transmitted correctly
   from the Registry, but also the contents are also "meaningful".


11.  Acknowledgments

   Parts of this document are based on EPP [RFC5730] and related RFCs by
   Scott Hollenbeck.

   TBD


12.  Change History

12.1.  Changes from version 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.



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   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.

   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.

12.2.  Changes from version 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.




Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   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.

12.3.  Changes from version 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.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
              Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.

13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.



Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                March 2012


   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   Francisco Arias
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
   Marina del Rey  90292
   United States of America

   Phone: +1.310.823.9358
   Email: francisco.arias@icann.org


   Shoji Noguchi
   Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
   Chiyoda First Bldg. East 13F, 3-8-1 Nishi-Kanda
   Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo  101-0065
   Japan

   Phone: +81.3.5215.8451
   Email: noguchi@jprs.co.jp



























Arias & Noguchi        Expires September 10, 2012              [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/