[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow)
00 01 02 03 04 05 07
Network Working Group G. Lozano
Internet-Draft ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track Apr 07, 2020
Expires: October 9, 2020
Registry Data Escrow Specification
draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07
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 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 October 9, 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 October 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. General Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Root element <deposit> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 16
13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 16
13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . 16
13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . 16
13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . 17
13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06 . . . . . . 17
13.19. Changes from version REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07 . . . . . . 17
14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
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 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", "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.
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].
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
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 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.
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.
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
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.
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.
4. General Conventions
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.
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
The XML namespace prefix "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" with the
corresponding namespaces "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and
"urn:ietf: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.
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) 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.
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
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
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 data-time corresponding
to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit.
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
This element SHOULD 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 MUST NOT be present in Full Deposits.
When rebuilding a registry it MUST be ignored if present in a Full
Deposit.
The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the
identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted.
5.1.4. Child <contents> element
This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit. It
SHOULD 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
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
previous deposit. In order to distinguish between one and the other,
it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in
the previous deposit.
When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding
the registry from data escrow deposits) the relative order of the
<deletes> elements is important, as is the relative order of the
<contents> elements. 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> 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.
6. Formal Syntax
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"/>
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
</complexType>
<!-- Menu type -->
<complexType name="rdeMenuType">
<sequence>
<element name="version" type="rde:versionType"/>
<element name="objURI" type="anyURI" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</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 -->
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
<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">
<restriction base="token">
<pattern value="[1-9]+\.[0-9]+"/>
<enumeration value="1.0"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Auxiliary element to identify a registrar -->
<simpleType name="clIDType">
<restriction base="token">
<minLength value="3"/>
<maxLength value="16"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<complexType name="rrType">
<simpleContent>
<extension base="rde:clIDType">
<attribute name="client" type="rde:clIDType"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
</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.
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
Registration request for the RDE namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IETF <regext@ietf.org>
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: IETF <regext@ietf.org>
See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
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
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
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
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 registry
transmitting the data to the escrow agent SHOULD take all the
necessary precautions such as encrypting the data itself and/or the
transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data.
Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is
also of the utmost importance. 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 that the file was transmitted
correctly from the registry, but also that the contents are
"meaningful".
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
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 regulate
the particularities regarding the protection of personal data.
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.
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
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.
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.
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
9. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions.
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 October 9, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 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 October 9, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 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.
14. Example of a Full Deposit
Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and
rdeObj2:
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="FULL"
id="20191017001">
<rde:watermark>2019-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf: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>
15. Example of a Differential Deposit
Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects
rdeObj1 and rdeObj2:
Lozano Expires October 9, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="DIFF"
id="20191017001" prevId="20191016001">
<rde:watermark>2019-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf: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 October 9, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 2020
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="INCR"
id="20191017001" prevId="20191010001">
<rde:watermark>2019-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf: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 October 9, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Apr 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
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[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
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 October 9, 2020 [Page 21]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/