draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05.txt		draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-06.txt
	Network Working Group G. Lozano		Network Working Group G. Lozano
	Internet-Draft ICANN		Internet-Draft ICANN
	Intended status: Standards Track Feb 28, 2020		Intended status: Standards Track Apr 06, 2020
	Expires: August 31, 2020		Expires: October 8, 2020
	Registry Data Escrow Specification		Registry Data Escrow Specification
	draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05		draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies the format and contents of data escrow		This document specifies the format and contents of data escrow
	deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries. However, the		deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries. However, the
	specification was designed to be independent of the underlying		specification was designed to be independent of the underlying
	objects that are being escrowed, therefore it could be used for		objects that are being escrowed, therefore it could be used for
	purposes other than domain name registries.		purposes other than domain name registries.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 8, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 41 ¶
	13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 16		13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 16
	13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 16		13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 16
	13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . 16		13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . 16
	13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . 16		13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . 16
	13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . 17		13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . 17
			13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06 . . . . . . 17
	14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically		Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically
	submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent. These		submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent. These
	deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume		deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume
	operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling		operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling
	to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, for a		to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, for a
	domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would		domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would
	include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g.,		include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g.,
	skipping to change at page 7, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 24 ¶
	to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit.		to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit.
	5.1.2. Child <rdeMenu> element		5.1.2. Child <rdeMenu> element
	This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow		This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow
	deposit.		deposit.
	A REQUIRED <rdeMenu> element contains the following child elements:		A REQUIRED <rdeMenu> element contains the following child elements:
	o A REQUIRED <version> element that identifies the RDE protocol		o A REQUIRED <version> element that identifies the RDE protocol
	version.		version, this value MUST be 1.0.
	o One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs		o One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs
	representing the <contents> and <deletes> element objects.		representing the <contents> and <deletes> element objects.
	5.1.3. Child <deletes> element		5.1.3. Child <deletes> element
	This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or		This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or
	Differential. It contains the list of objects that were deleted		Differential. It contains the list of objects that were deleted
	since the base previous deposit. Each object in this section SHALL		since the base previous deposit. Each object in this section SHALL
	contain an ID for the object deleted.		contain an ID for the object deleted.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 35 ¶
	10. Security Considerations		10. Security Considerations
	This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used		This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used
	in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only		in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only
	specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a		specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a
	registry from deposits without intervention from the original		registry from deposits without intervention from the original
	registry.		registry.
	Depending on local policies, some elements or, most likely, the whole		Depending on local policies, some elements or, most likely, the whole
	deposit will be considered confidential. As such, the registry		deposit will be considered confidential. As such, the registry
	transmitting the data to the escrow agent should take all the		transmitting the data to the escrow agent SHOULD take all the
	necessary precautions such as encrypting the data itself and/or the		necessary precautions such as encrypting the data itself and/or the
	transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data.		transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data.
	Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is		Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is
	also of the utmost importance. The escrow agent SHOULD properly		also of the utmost importance. The escrow agent SHOULD properly
	authenticate the identity of the registry before accepting data		authenticate the identity of the registry before accepting data
	escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the registry SHOULD		escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the registry SHOULD
	authenticate the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any		authenticate the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any
	data.		data.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 18 ¶
	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/		https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
	UNo6YxapgjyerAYv0223zEuzjFk		UNo6YxapgjyerAYv0223zEuzjFk
	2. The examples of deposits were moved to their own sections.		2. The examples of deposits were moved to their own sections.
	3. <deposit> elements definition moved to section 5.1.		3. <deposit> elements definition moved to section 5.1.
	4. The DIFF example was modified to make it more representative of a		4. The DIFF example was modified to make it more representative of a
	differential deposit.		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.
	14. Example of a Full Deposit		14. Example of a Full Deposit
	Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and		Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and
	rdeObj2:		rdeObj2:
	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<rde:deposit		<rde:deposit
	xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"		xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
	xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"		xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
	xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"		xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
	skipping to change at page 20, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 21, line 9 ¶
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS		[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
	Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,		Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
	January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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		17.2. Informative References
	[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,		[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
	[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running		[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
	Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,		Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
	RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,		RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
End of changes. 9 change blocks.
	12 lines changed or deleted		39 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/