--- 1/draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-04.txt 2020-02-28 17:13:16.764904846 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05.txt 2020-02-28 17:13:16.808905958 -0800 @@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ Network Working Group G. Lozano Internet-Draft ICANN -Intended status: Standards Track Jan 08, 2020 -Expires: July 11, 2020 +Intended status: Standards Track Feb 28, 2020 +Expires: August 31, 2020 Registry Data Escrow Specification - draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-04 + draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05 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 @@ -23,21 +23,21 @@ 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 July 11, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 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 @@ -45,58 +45,58 @@ to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. General Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. General Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Root element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5.2. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5.3. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5.4. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.5. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 13. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 19 - 13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 19 - 13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . 20 - 13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . 20 - 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 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 + 14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 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., @@ -187,25 +187,22 @@ 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 main motivation for developing this specification 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 this base specification and develop their own specifications - covering the objects used by other registration organizations. + 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 @@ -231,21 +228,21 @@ 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. The XML namespace prefix "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" with the - corresponding namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and + 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". @@ -258,170 +255,80 @@ 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 The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is - . This element contains the following child elements: - , , and elements. This - element also contains the following attributes: + . + + The 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. + own escrow deposits' identifier space to ensure uniqueness. - o An OPTIONAL "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the - previous Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This - attribute MUST be used in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type). + o A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous + Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This attribute is + REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in + Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full + Deposits ("FULL" type). o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0". If a deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to "1", and so on. - Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and - rdeObj2: - - - - 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z - - 1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 - - - - EXAMPLE - - - fsh8013-EXAMPLE - - - - - Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects - rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: - - - - 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z - - 1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 - - - - EXAMPLE1 - - - fsh8013-EXAMPLE - - - - - EXAMPLE2 - - - sh8014-EXAMPLE - - - - - Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects - rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: - - - - 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z - - 1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 - - - - EXAMPLE1 - - - fsh8013-EXAMPLE - - - - - EXAMPLE2 - - - sh8014-EXAMPLE - - - + The element contains the following the child elements: -5.2. Child element +5.1.1. Child element A REQUIRED element contains the data-time corresponding to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. -5.3. Child element +5.1.2. Child element This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow deposit. A REQUIRED element contains the following child elements: o A REQUIRED element that identifies the RDE protocol version. o One or more elements that contain namespace URIs representing the and element objects. -5.4. Child element +5.1.3. Child 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 SHOULD NOT be present in Full Deposits. - When rebuilding a registry it SHOULD be ignored if present in a Full + 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. -5.5. Child element +5.1.4. Child 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 previous deposit. In order to distinguish between one and the other, it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in @@ -436,52 +343,20 @@ If an object is present in the 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 - Copyright (c) 2019 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 - 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 Registry Data Escrow schema @@ -670,38 +545,39 @@ 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 like encrypting the data itself and/or the + 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. - It is also of the utmost importance the authentication of the parties - passing data escrow deposit files. The escrow agent SHOULD properly + 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 the file was transmitted correctly - from the registry, but also the contents are also "meaningful". + RECOMMENDED to ensure not only that the file was transmitted + correctly from the registry, but also that the contents are + "meaningful". 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 @@ -879,42 +755,147 @@ 1. The 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. -14. References +13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 -14.1. Normative References + 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. elements definition moved to section 5.1. + + 4. The DIFF example was modified to make it more representative of a + differential deposit. + +14. Example of a Full Deposit + + Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and + rdeObj2: + + + + 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z + + 1.0 + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 + + + + EXAMPLE + + + fsh8013-EXAMPLE + + + + +15. Example of a Differential Deposit + + Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects + rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: + + + + 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z + + 1.0 + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 + + + + EXAMPLE2 + + + sh8014-EXAMPLE + + + + +16. Example of a Incremental Deposit + + Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects + rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: + + + + 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z + + 1.0 + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 + + + + EXAMPLE1 + + + fsh8013-EXAMPLE + + + + + EXAMPLE2 + + + sh8014-EXAMPLE + + + + +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, . [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, January 2019, . -14.2. Informative References +17.2. Informative References [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . [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, .