--- 1/draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07.txt 2020-04-28 13:13:11.976210258 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-08.txt 2020-04-28 13:13:12.080211741 -0700 @@ -1,43 +1,43 @@ Network Working Group G. Lozano Internet-Draft ICANN -Intended status: Standards Track Apr 07, 2020 -Expires: October 9, 2020 +Intended status: Standards Track Apr 27, 2020 +Expires: October 29, 2020 Registry Data Escrow Specification - draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07 + draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-08 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 + deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries. The + specification is designed to be independent of the underlying objects + that are being escrowed and therefore it could also 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. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 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 @@ -45,85 +45,90 @@ 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 4. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Root element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.2. Rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits . . . . 8 6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 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 + 13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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 + 13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . 17 + 13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . 17 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 + 13.20. Changes from version REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08 . . . . . . 17 + 14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 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 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. + registry are not just those registering information there, but also + the users of services relying on the registry data. 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. + a requirement for generic top-level domains (e.g., Specification 2 of + the ICANN Base Registry Agreement, see [ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]) 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. + of the objects being escrowed. An independent 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 @@ -148,23 +153,26 @@ 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. + to cover (i.e., one or more Incremental or Differential Deposits + exist for the period between the Timeline Watermark of a Full and an + Incremental or Differential Deposit) 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. @@ -222,61 +230,71 @@ 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. Conventions Used in This Document 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 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. + corresponding namespaces "urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and + "urn:example: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 + 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. + The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the + identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted or added/ + modified. + 5.1. Root element The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is . 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). + deposit: + + * FULL: Full. + + * INCR: Incremental. + + * 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). @@ -286,86 +304,90 @@ 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. The element contains the following the child elements: 5.1.1. Child element - A REQUIRED element contains the data-time corresponding + A REQUIRED element contains the date-time corresponding to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. 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, this value MUST be 1.0. o One or more elements that contain namespace URIs representing the and element objects. 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. + For Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects + that have been deleted since the previous deposit of any type. For + Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that + have been deleted since the previous Full Deposit. 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 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. + For Full Deposits this element contains all objects. For + Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that + have been added or modified since the previous deposit of any type. + For Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects + that have been added or modified since the previous Full Deposit. - 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 previous deposit. +5.2. Rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding - the registry from data escrow deposits) the relative order of the - elements is important, as is the relative order of the - elements. All the elements MUST be applied - first, in the order that they appear. All the elements - MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. + the registry from data escrow deposits), the relative order of the + and elements is important because dependencies + may exist between the objects. All the elements MUST be + applied first, in the order that they appear. All the + elements MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. - 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. + If an object is present in the or 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. An object SHOULD NOT exist + multiple times either in the or elements in a + single deposit. + + When rebuilding a registry, the section MUST be ignored if + present in a Full Deposit. 6. Formal Syntax + RDE is specified in XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented + here is a complete schema representation of RDE suitable for + automated validation of RDE XML instances. + + The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to + note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration + purposes. + 6.1. RDE Schema BEGIN - Registry Data Escrow schema @@ -436,35 +457,20 @@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 @@ -474,29 +480,35 @@ 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. Registration request for the RDE namespace: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0 - Registrant Contact: IETF + Registrant Contact: IESG + + Note to RFC Editor: Please remove the email address from the RFC + after IANA records it. 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 + Registrant Contact: IESG + + Note to RFC Editor: Please remove the email address from the RFC + after IANA records it. 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 @@ -552,39 +565,43 @@ 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 + also of the utmost importance. The escrow agent MUST 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. + escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the registry MUST authenticate + the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any data. - Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent SHOULD use integrity + Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent MUST 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". + Note: if Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used when providing an + escrow services, the recommendations in [RFC7525] MUST be + implemented. + 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. + document agreed by the parties, and such legal document must ensure + that privacy-sensitive and/or personal data receives the required + protection. 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 @@ -781,93 +798,111 @@ 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. +13.20. Changes from version REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08 + + 1. Changes based on the feedback provided here: + https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/hDLz2ym4oR-ukA4Fm- + QJ8FzaxxE + + 2. Changes based on the feedback provided here: + https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/780Xw- + z1RMRb79nmZ6ABmRTo1fU + + 3. Changes based on the feedback provided here: + https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ + YnPnrSedrCcgQ2AXbjBTuQzqMds + + 4. Changes based on the feedback provided here: + https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ + BiV0NHi_k7cYwTiLdLwVgqEcFuo + 14. Example of a Full Deposit Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: - 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z + id="20191018001"> + 2019-10-17T23:59:59Z 1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 + urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 + urn:example: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 + id="20191019001" prevId="20191018001"> + 2019-10-18T23:59:59Z 1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 + urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 + urn:example: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 + id="20200317001" prevId="20200314001"> + 2020-03-16T23:59:59Z 1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 - urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 + urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 + urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 EXAMPLE1 fsh8013-EXAMPLE @@ -913,29 +948,39 @@ xmlschema-1-20041028", October 2004, . [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition REC-xmlschema-2-20041028", October 2004, . 17.2. Informative References + [ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731] + ICANN, "Base Registry Agreement 2017-07-31", July 2017, + . + [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . + [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, + "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer + Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security + (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May + 2015, . + [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, . 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