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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 06 07

Network Working Group                                           F. Arias
Internet-Draft                                                 G. Lozano
Intended status: Standards Track                                   ICANN
Expires: April 24, 2013                                       S. Noguchi
                                                                    JPRS
                                                        October 21, 2012


                   Registry Data Escrow Specification
              draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-04

Abstract

   This document specifies the format and contents of data escrow
   deposits targeted primarily 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
   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 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 April 24, 2013.

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



Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     12.2. Changes from version 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     12.3. Changes from version 02 to 03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     12.4. Changes from version 03 to 04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


















Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


1.  Introduction

   Registry Data Escrow is the process by which an 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 can not 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 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 generic top-level domains 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.  A 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.

   ESCROW AGENT.  The organization designated by the Registry or the
   Third-Party Beneficiary to receive and guard Data Escrow Deposits
   from the Registry.




Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


   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

   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



Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


   deposits.

   While the main motivation for developing this solution is rooted on
   the domain name industry, the specification has been designed to be
   as general as possible.  This allows other types of registries to use
   the base specification and develop their own specifications covering
   the objects used by other registration organizations.

   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 details of the registration services provided 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 requirement for confidentiality and the importance of
   accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer
   registration services, the solution SHALL define confidentiality and
   integrity mechanisms for 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 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.


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
   from the zero meridian.







Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


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 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 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 and contents.  This element also contains the
   following attributes:

   o  A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of
      deposit: FULL, INCR (Incremental) or 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, 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 attribute is an
      unsigned integer that is incremented each time the escrow is
      transmitted.  The first time a deposit is attempted to be sent,
      the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0".  On the second
      attempt to send (i.e. the first attempt to resend) the attribute
      MUST be set to "1", and so on.  This would be used when, for
      example, the previous deposit was not received complete, or it
      failed verification at the receiving party.

   Example of root element object:










Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 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 corresponding 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 contains auxiliary information of the data escrow
   deposit.

   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 <contents> and <deletes> element objects.

   Example of <rdeMenu> element object:





Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


<?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:rdeNNDN-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, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 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.

   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, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 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, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 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, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 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, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 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, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


     </simpleType>

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


7.  Extension Guidelines

   Different business models of registries exist therefore the registry
   is reponsible to define a profile that matches its particular model
   business model.  A profile is an XML schema specifically develop to
   the business model of the particular registry.  The profile is used
   by the data escrow agent to verify the escrow deposits and during the
   restoration process of a registry based on the data escrow deposits.
   XML Element Subsitution is used to customize a profile.  More
   detailed spec 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:



Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0

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

      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






Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


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.

   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.






Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


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.

   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.

12.4.  Changes from version 03 to 04

   1.  Removed <eppParams> objects.





Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


   2.  Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section.

   3.  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.

   [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


   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







Arias, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow              October 2012


   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, et al.            Expires April 24, 2013                [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/