draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-10.txt   rfc8909.txt 
Network Working Group G. Lozano Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Lozano
Internet-Draft ICANN Request for Comments: 8909 ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track Jun 1, 2020 Category: Standards Track November 2020
Expires: December 3, 2020 ISSN: 2070-1721
Registry Data Escrow Specification Registry Data Escrow Specification
draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-10
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. The deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries. The
specification is designed to be independent of the underlying objects specification is designed to be independent of the underlying objects
that are being escrowed and therefore it could also be used for that are being escrowed, and therefore it could also be used for
purposes other than domain name registries. purposes other than domain name registries.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2020. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8909.
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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology
3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Problem Scope
4. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Conventions Used in This Document
4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Date and Time
5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Protocol Description
5.1. Root element <deposit> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Root Element <deposit>
5.2. Rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits . . . . 8 5.2. Rebuilding the Registry from Data Escrow Deposits
6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Formal Syntax
6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. RDE Schema
7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Internationalization Considerations
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. IANA Considerations
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Security Considerations
9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. Privacy Considerations
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. Example of a Full Deposit
11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12. Example of a Differential Deposit
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 13. Example of an Incremental Deposit
13. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 14. References
13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 14.1. Normative References
13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14.2. Informative References
13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Acknowledgments
13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Author's Address
13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 17
13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 17
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 . . . . . . 18
13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06 . . . . . . 18
13.19. Changes from version REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07 . . . . . . 18
13.20. Changes from version REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08 . . . . . . 18
13.21. Changes from version REGEXT 08 to REGEXT 09 . . . . . . 19
13.22. Changes from version REGEXT 09 to REGEXT 10 . . . . . . 19
14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically Registry Data Escrow (RDE) is the process by which a registry
submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent. These periodically submits data deposits to a third party called an escrow
deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume agent. These deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third
operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling party to resume operations if the registry cannot function and is
to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, for a unable or unwilling to facilitate an orderly transfer of service.
domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would For example, for a domain name registry or registrar, the data to be
include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g., deposited would include all of the objects related to registered
names, contacts, name servers, etc. domain names, e.g., names, contacts, name servers.
The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration
services, for the benefit of Internet users. The beneficiaries of a services, for the benefit of Internet users. The beneficiaries of a
registry are not just those registering information there, but also registry are not just those registering information there but also
the users of services relying on the registry data. the users of services relying on the registry data.
In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is
a requirement for generic top-level domains (e.g., Specification 2 of a requirement for generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) (e.g.,
the ICANN Base Registry Agreement, see [ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]) and Specification 2 of the ICANN Base Registry Agreement; see
some country code top-level domain managers are also currently [ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]), and some country code TLD (ccTLD) managers
escrowing data. There is also a similar requirement for ICANN- are also currently escrowing data. There is also a similar
accredited domain registrars. requirement for ICANN-accredited domain registrars.
This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent
of the objects being escrowed. An independent specification is of the objects being escrowed. An independent specification is
required for each type of registry/set of objects that is expected to required for each type of registry/set of objects that is expected to
be escrowed. be escrowed.
The format for data escrow deposits is specified using the Extensible The format for data escrow deposits is specified using version 1.0 of
Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] and the Extensible Markup Language (XML) as described in
XML Schema notation as described in [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] [W3C.REC-xml-20081126], and XML Schema notation as described in
and [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]. [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] and [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028].
Readers are advised to read the terminology section carefully to Readers are advised to read Section 2 ("Terminology") carefully to
understand the precise meanings of Differential and Incremental understand the precise meanings of Differential and Incremental
Deposits as the definitions used in this document are different from Deposits, as the definitions used in this document are different from
the definitions typically used in the domain of data backups. the definitions typically used in the domain of data backups.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Deposit. Deposits can be of three kinds: Full, Differential or Deposit: There are three kinds of deposits: Full, Differential, and
Incremental. For all kinds of deposits, the universe of registry Incremental. For all three kinds of deposits, the universe of
objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary registry objects to be considered for data escrow is comprised of
in order to offer the registry services. any objects required to offer the registry services.
Differential Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions Differential Deposit: A Differential Deposit contains data that
involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous reflects all transactions involving the database that were not
Full, Incremental or Differential Deposit, as the case may be. reflected in the last previous Full, Incremental, or Differential
Differential Deposit files will contain information from all database Deposit, as the case may be. Differential Deposit files will
objects that were added, modified or deleted since the previous contain information from all database objects that were added,
deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark. modified, or deleted since the previous deposit was completed as
of its defined Timeline Watermark.
Domain Name. See definition of Domain name in [RFC8499]. Domain Name: See the definition of "domain name" in [RFC8499].
Escrow Agent. The organization designated by the registry or the Escrow Agent: An escrow agent is the organization designated by the
third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data escrow deposits registry or the third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data
from the registry. escrow deposits from the registry.
Full Deposit. Contains the registry data that reflects the current Full Deposit: A Full Deposit contains the registry data that
and complete registry database and will consist of data that reflects reflects the current and complete registry database and will
the state of the registry as of a defined Timeline Watermark for the consist of data that reflects the state of the registry as of a
deposit. defined Timeline Watermark for the deposit.
Incremental Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions Incremental Deposit: An Incremental Deposit contains data that
involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous reflects all transactions involving the database that were not
Full Deposit. Incremental Deposit files will contain information reflected in the last previous Full Deposit. Incremental Deposit
from all database objects that were added, modified or deleted since files will contain information from all database objects that were
the previous Full Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline added, modified, or deleted since the previous Full Deposit was
Watermark. If the Timeline Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark. If the Timeline
to cover (i.e., one or more Incremental or Differential Deposits Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were to cover the Timeline
exist for the period between the Timeline Watermark of a Full and an Watermark of another Incremental or Differential Deposit since the
Incremental or Differential Deposit) the Timeline Watermark of last Full Deposit (i.e., one or more Incremental or Differential
another Incremental or Differential Deposit since the last Full Deposits exist for the period between the Timeline Watermark of a
Deposit, the more recent deposit MUST contain all the transactions of Full Deposit and an Incremental or Differential Deposit), the more
the earlier deposit. recent deposit MUST contain all of the transactions of the earlier
deposit.
Registrar. See definition of Registrar in [RFC8499]. Registrar: See the definition of "registrar" in [RFC8499].
Registry. See definition of Registry in [RFC8499]. Registry: See the definition of "registry" in [RFC8499].
Third-Party Beneficiary. Is the organization that, under Third-Party Beneficiary: A third-party beneficiary is the
extraordinary circumstances, would receive the escrow deposits the organization that, under extraordinary circumstances, would
registry transferred to the escrow agent. This organization could be receive the escrow deposits the registry transferred to the escrow
a backup registry, registry regulator, contracting party of the agent. This organization could be a backup registry, registry
registry, etc. regulator, contracting party of the registry, etc.
Timeline Watermark. Point in time on which to base the collecting of Timeline Watermark: The Timeline Watermark is the point in time on
database objects for a deposit. Deposits are expected to be which to base the collecting of database objects for a deposit.
consistent to that point in time. Deposits are expected to be consistent with that point in time.
Top-Level Domain. See definition of Top-Level Domain (TLD) in Top-Level Domain (TLD): See the definition of "Top-Level Domain" in
[RFC8499]. [RFC8499].
3. Problem Scope 3. Problem Scope
In the past few years, the issue of registry continuity has been In the past few years, the issue of registry continuity has been
carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. Various carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD spaces. Various
organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business
continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize. continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize.
One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD
space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the continuity of space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the continuity of
registry services in the extreme case of registry failure. registry services in the extreme case of registry failure.
So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its
own specification. It is anticipated that more registries will be own specification. It is anticipated that more registries will be
implementing escrow especially with an increasing number of domain implementing escrow, especially with an increasing number of domain
registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue. registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue.
It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for
Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its
deposits. deposits.
While the domain name industry has been the main target for this While the domain name industry has been the main target for this
specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible. specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible.
Specifications covering the objects used by registration Specifications covering the objects used by registration
organizations shall identify the format and contents of the deposits organizations shall identify the format and contents of the deposits
a registry has to make, such that a different registry would be able a registry has to make, such that a different registry would be able
to rebuild the registration services of the former, without its help, to rebuild the registration services of the former, without its help,
in a timely manner, with minimum disruption to its users. in a timely manner and with minimum disruption to its users.
Since the details of the registration services provided vary from Since the details of the registration services provided vary from
registry to registry, specifications covering the objects used by registry to registry, specifications covering the objects used by
registration organizations shall provide mechanisms that allow its registration organizations shall provide mechanisms that allow
extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of the extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of the
registration services. registration services.
Given the requirement for confidentiality and the importance of Given the requirement for confidentiality and the importance of
accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer
registration services, parties using this specification shall define registration services, parties using this specification shall define
confidentiality and integrity mechanisms for handling the confidentiality and integrity mechanisms for handling the
registration data. registration data.
Specifications covering the objects used by registration Specifications covering the objects used by registration
organizations shall not include in the specification transient organizations shall not include in the specification transient
objects that can be recreated by the new registry, particularly those objects that can be recreated by the new registry, particularly those
of delicate confidentiality, e.g., DNSSEC KSK/ZSK private keys. of delicate confidentiality, e.g., DNSSEC KSK/ZSK (Key Signing Key /
Zone Signing Key) private keys.
Details that are a matter of policy should be identified as such for Details that are a matter of policy should be identified as such for
the benefit of the implementers. the benefit of the implementers.
Non-technical issues concerning data escrow, such as whether to Non-technical issues concerning data escrow, such as whether to
escrow data and under which purposes the data may be used, are escrow data and for what purposes the data may be used, are outside
outside of scope of this document. the scope of this document.
Parties using this specification shall use a signaling mechanism to Parties using this specification shall use a signaling mechanism to
control the transmission, reception and validation of data escrow control the transmission, reception, and validation of data escrow
deposits. The definition of such a signaling mechanism is out of the deposits. The definition of such a signaling mechanism is outside
scope of this document. the scope of this document.
4. Conventions Used in This Document 4. Conventions Used in This Document
The XML namespace prefix "rde" is used for the namespace The XML namespace prefix "rde" is used for the namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0", but implementations MUST NOT depend "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0", but implementations MUST NOT depend
on it; instead, they should employ a proper namespace-aware XML on it; instead, they should employ a proper namespace-aware XML
parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents. parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
The XML namespace prefix "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" with the The XML namespace prefixes "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2", with the
corresponding namespaces "urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and corresponding namespaces "urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and
"urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" are used as example data "urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0", are used as example data
escrow objects. escrow objects.
4.1. Date and Time 4.1. Date and Time
Numerous fields indicate "dates", such as the creation and expiry Numerous fields indicate "dates", such as the creation and expiry
dates for objects. These fields SHALL contain timestamps indicating dates for objects. These fields SHALL contain timestamps indicating
the date and time in UTC, specified in Internet Date/Time Format (see the date and time in UTC, specified in Internet Date/Time Format (see
[RFC3339], Section 5.6) with the time-offset specified as "Z". [RFC3339], Section 5.6) with the time-offset parameter specified as
"Z".
5. Protocol Description 5. Protocol Description
The following is a format for data escrow deposits as produced by a The format for data escrow deposits as produced by a registry is
registry. The deposits are represented in XML. Only the format of defined below. The deposits are represented in XML (Section 6).
the objects deposited is defined. Nothing is prescribed about the Only the format of the objects deposited is defined. This document
method used to transfer such deposits between the registry and the does not prescribe the method used to transfer such deposits between
escrow agent or vice versa. the registry and the escrow agent or vice versa.
The protocol intends to be object agnostic allowing the "overload" of The protocol intends to be object agnostic, allowing the "overload"
abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute of the XML of abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute
Schema element to define the actual elements of an object to be [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] of the XML Schema element to define
escrowed. the actual elements of an object to be escrowed.
The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the
identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted or added/ identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted or added/
modified. modified.
5.1. Root element <deposit> 5.1. Root Element <deposit>
The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is
<deposit>. <deposit>.
The <deposit> element contains the following attributes: The <deposit> element contains the following attributes:
o A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of * A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of
deposit: deposit:
* FULL: Full. - FULL: Full.
* INCR: Incremental. - INCR: Incremental.
* DIFF: Differential. - DIFF: Differential.
o A REQUIRED "id" attribute that is used to uniquely identify the * A REQUIRED "id" attribute that is used to uniquely identify the
escrow deposit. Each registry is responsible for maintaining its 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 A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous * A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous
Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This attribute is Incremental, Differential, or Full Deposit. This attribute is
REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in
Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full
Deposits ("FULL" type). Deposits ("FULL" type).
o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the * An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the
escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving
party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the
registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is
generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0". If a generated, the attribute either (1) is omitted or (2) MUST be "0".
deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to If a deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be
"1", and so on. set to "1", and so on.
The <deposit> element contains the following the child elements: The <deposit> element contains the following child elements:
5.1.1. Child <watermark> element 5.1.1. Child <watermark> Element
A REQUIRED <watermark> element contains the date-time corresponding A REQUIRED <watermark> element contains the date-time [RFC3339]
to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. corresponding 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 regarding 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 * A REQUIRED <version> element that identifies the RDE protocol
version, this value MUST be 1.0. version. This value MUST be 1.0.
o One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs * 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
For Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects For Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects
that have been deleted since the previous deposit of any type. For that have been deleted since the previous deposit of any type. For
Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that
have been deleted since the previous Full Deposit. have been deleted since the previous Full Deposit.
This section of the deposit MUST NOT be present in Full Deposits. This section of the deposit MUST NOT be present in Full Deposits.
5.1.4. Child <contents> element 5.1.4. Child <contents> Element
For Full Deposits this element contains all objects. For For Full Deposits, this element contains all objects. For
Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that Differential Deposits, this element contains the list of objects that
have been added or modified since the previous deposit of any type. have been added or modified since the previous deposit of any type.
For Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects For Incremental Deposits, this element contains the list of objects
that have been added or modified since the previous Full Deposit. that have been added or modified since the previous Full Deposit.
5.2. Rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits 5.2. Rebuilding the Registry from Data Escrow Deposits
When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding
the registry from data escrow deposits), the relative order of the the registry from data escrow deposits), the relative order of the
<deletes> and <contents> elements is important because dependencies <deletes> and <contents> elements is important because dependencies
may exist between the objects. All the <deletes> elements MUST be may exist between the objects. All of the <deletes> elements MUST be
applied first, in the order that they appear. All the <contents> applied first, in the order in which they appear. All of the
elements MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. <contents> elements MUST be applied next, in the order in which they
appear.
If an object is present in the <contents> or <deletes> section of If an object is present in the <contents> or <deletes> section of
several deposits (e.g. Full and Differential) the registry data from several deposits (e.g., Full and Differential), the registry data
the latest deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be from the latest deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD
used when rebuilding the registry. An object SHOULD NOT exist be used when rebuilding the registry. An object SHOULD NOT exist
multiple times either in the <contents> or <deletes> elements in a multiple times in either the <contents> or <deletes> elements in a
single deposit. single deposit.
When rebuilding a registry, the <deletes> section MUST be ignored if When rebuilding a registry, the <deletes> section MUST be ignored if
present in a Full Deposit. present in a Full Deposit.
6. Formal Syntax 6. Formal Syntax
RDE is specified in XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented RDE is specified in XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented
here is a complete schema representation of RDE suitable for here is a complete schema representation of RDE suitable for
automated validation of RDE XML instances. automated validation of RDE XML instances.
The BEGIN and END tags are not part of the schema; they are used to The <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> tags are not part of the schema;
note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI registration they are used to note the beginning and ending of the schema for URI
purposes. registration purposes.
6.1. RDE Schema 6.1. RDE Schema
BEGIN <CODE BEGINS>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0" <schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rde="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" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified"> elementFormDefault="qualified">
<annotation>
<documentation>
Registry Data Escrow schema
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- Root element --> <annotation>
<element name="deposit" type="rde:escrowDepositType"/> <documentation>
Registry Data Escrow schema
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- RDE types --> <!-- Root element -->
<complexType name="escrowDepositType"> <element name="deposit" type="rde: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"/>
</complexType>
<!-- Menu type --> <!-- RDE types -->
<complexType name="rdeMenuType"> <complexType name="escrowDepositType">
<sequence> <sequence>
<element name="version" type="rde:versionType"/> <element name="watermark" type="dateTime"/>
<element name="objURI" type="anyURI" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <element name="rdeMenu" type="rde:rdeMenuType"/>
</sequence> <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"/>
</complexType>
</complexType> <!-- Menu type -->
<complexType name="rdeMenuType">
<sequence>
<element name="version" type="rde:versionType"/>
<element name="objURI" type="anyURI" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!-- Deletes Type --> <!-- Deletes type -->
<complexType name="deletesType"> <complexType name="deletesType">
<sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:delete"/> <element ref="rde:delete"/>
</sequence> </sequence>
</complexType> </complexType>
<element name="delete" type="rde:deleteType" abstract="true" /> <element name="delete" type="rde:deleteType" abstract="true"/>
<complexType name="deleteType"> <complexType name="deleteType">
<complexContent> <complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType"/> <restriction base="anyType"/>
</complexContent> </complexContent>
</complexType> </complexType>
<!-- Contents Type --> <!-- Contents type -->
<complexType name="contentsType"> <complexType name="contentsType">
<sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:content"/> <element ref="rde:content"/>
</sequence> </sequence>
</complexType> </complexType>
<element name="content" type="rde:contentType" abstract="true" /> <element name="content" type="rde:contentType" abstract="true"/>
<complexType name="contentType"> <complexType name="contentType">
<complexContent> <complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType"/> <restriction base="anyType"/>
</complexContent> </complexContent>
</complexType> </complexType>
<!-- Type of deposit --> <!-- Type of deposit -->
<simpleType name="depositTypeType"> <simpleType name="depositTypeType">
<restriction base="token"> <restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="FULL"/> <enumeration value="FULL"/>
<enumeration value="INCR"/> <enumeration value="INCR"/>
<enumeration value="DIFF"/> <enumeration value="DIFF"/>
</restriction> </restriction>
</simpleType> </simpleType>
<!-- Deposit identifier type --> <!-- Deposit identifier type -->
<simpleType name="depositIdType"> <simpleType name="depositIdType">
<restriction base="token"> <restriction base="token">
<pattern value="\w{1,13}"/> <pattern value="\w{1,13}"/>
</restriction> </restriction>
</simpleType> </simpleType>
<!-- A RDE version number is a dotted pair of decimal numbers --> <!-- A RDE version number is a dotted pair of decimal numbers -->
<simpleType name="versionType"> <simpleType name="versionType">
<restriction base="token"> <restriction base="token">
<pattern value="[1-9]+\.[0-9]+"/> <pattern value="[1-9]+\.[0-9]+"/>
<enumeration value="1.0"/> <enumeration value="1.0"/>
</restriction> </restriction>
</simpleType> </simpleType>
</schema> </schema>
END <CODE ENDS>
7. Internationalization Considerations 7. Internationalization Considerations
Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native
support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and
its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML its more compact representations, including UTF-8. Conformant XML
processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes
provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use provisions to identify and use other character encodings through the
of an "encoding" attribute in an <?xml?> declaration, use of UTF-8 is use of an "encoding" attribute in an <?xml?> declaration, the use of
RECOMMENDED. UTF-8 is RECOMMENDED.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI
assignments have been registered by the IANA. assignments have been registered by the IANA.
Registration request for the RDE namespace: Registration for the RDE namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG <regext@ietf.org>
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: IESG <regext@ietf.org>
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
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
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. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Coverage: all aspects of this specification are implemented. Registration for the RDE XML schema:
Version compatibility: versions 03 - 08 are known to be implemented. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
Contact: gustavo.lozano@icann.org See Section 6 ("Formal Syntax") of this document.
URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-
agreements-en
10. Security Considerations 9. 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 Depending on local policies, some elements -- or, most likely, the
whole deposit will be considered confidential. As such, the parties whole deposit -- will be considered confidential. As such, the
SHOULD take all the necessary precautions such as encrypting the data parties SHOULD take all necessary precautions, such as encrypting the
at rest and in transit to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data at rest and in transit to avoid inadvertent disclosure of
data. Regardless of the precautions taken by the parties regarding private data. Regardless of the precautions taken by the parties
data at rest and in transit, authentication credentials MUST NOT be regarding data at rest and in transit, authentication credentials
escrowed. MUST NOT be escrowed.
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 MUST properly also of the utmost importance. The escrow agent MUST 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 MUST authenticate escrow deposits. Similarly, the registry MUST authenticate the
the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any data. identity of the escrow agent before submitting any data.
Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent MUST use integrity Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent MUST use integrity-
checking mechanisms to ensure the data transmitted is what the source checking mechanisms to ensure that the data transmitted is what the
intended. Validation of the contents by the escrow agent is source intended. Validation of the contents by the escrow agent is
RECOMMENDED to ensure not only that the file was transmitted RECOMMENDED to ensure not only that the file was transmitted
correctly from the registry, but also that the contents are correctly from the registry but also that the contents are
"meaningful". "meaningful".
Note: if Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used when providing an | Note: If Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used when providing
escrow services, the recommendations in [RFC7525] MUST be | an escrow service, the recommendations in [RFC7525] MUST be
implemented. | implemented.
11. Privacy Considerations 10. Privacy Considerations
This specification defines a format that may be used to escrow This specification defines a format that may be used to escrow
personal data. The process of data escrow is governed by a legal personal data. The process of data escrow is governed by a legal
document agreed by the parties, and such legal document must ensure document agreed upon by the parties, and such a legal document must
that privacy-sensitive and/or personal data receives the required ensure that privacy-sensitive and/or personal data receives the
protection. 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
13.21. Changes from version REGEXT 08 to REGEXT 09
1. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/x_8twvi-
MS4dDDRfAZfNJH92UaQ
2. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
B3QTxUCWUE4R_QharAQlA3041j0
13.22. Changes from version REGEXT 09 to REGEXT 10
1. Changes based on the feedback provided here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/
UaMNvl1xh60ldjpqHHYc3TNsfhg
14. Example of a Full Deposit 11. 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:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="FULL" type="FULL"
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at line 564
<rde:contents> <rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1> <rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE</rdeObj1:name> <rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1> </rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2> <rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>fsh8013-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id> <rdeObj2:id>fsh8013-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2> </rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents> </rde:contents>
</rde:deposit> </rde:deposit>
15. Example of a Differential Deposit 12. Example of a Differential Deposit
Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects
rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: rdeObj1 and 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:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="DIFF" type="DIFF"
skipping to change at page 20, line 33 skipping to change at line 592
<rde:contents> <rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1> <rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name> <rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1> </rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2> <rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id> <rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2> </rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents> </rde:contents>
</rde:deposit> </rde:deposit>
16. Example of a Incremental Deposit 13. Example of an Incremental Deposit
Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects
rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: rdeObj1 and 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:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="INCR" type="INCR"
skipping to change at page 21, line 36 skipping to change at line 628
<rde:contents> <rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1> <rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name> <rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1> </rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2> <rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id> <rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2> </rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents> </rde:contents>
</rde:deposit> </rde:deposit>
17. References 14. References
17.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<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] [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and Bray, T., Ed., Paoli, J., Ed., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M.,
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Ed., Maler, E., Ed., and F. Yergeau, Ed., "Extensible
Edition) REC-xml-20081126", November 2008, Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", REC-xml-
20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>. <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn, Thompson, H.S., Ed., Beech, D., Ed., Maloney, M., Ed., and
"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition REC- N. Mendelsohn, Ed., "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second
xmlschema-1-20041028", October 2004, Edition", REC-xmlschema-1-20041028, October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/>. <https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Biron, P. V., Ed. and A. Malhotra, Ed., "XML Schema Part
Second Edition REC-xmlschema-2-20041028", October 2004, 2: Datatypes Second Edition", REC-xmlschema-2-20041028,
October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/>. <https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/>.
17.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731] [ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]
ICANN, "Base Registry Agreement 2017-07-31", July 2017, ICANN, "Base Registry Agreement", 31 July 2017,
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/
agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>. agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>.
[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>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Acknowledgments
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, Special suggestions that were incorporated into this document were
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. 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 coauthors through
version 07 of draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow (the precursor
to this document) and provided invaluable support for this document.
Author's Address Author's Address
Gustavo Lozano Gustavo Lozano
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles 90292 Los Angeles, CA 90292
United States of America United States of America
Phone: +1.310.823.9358 Phone: +1.310.823.9358
Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org
 End of changes. 101 change blocks. 
624 lines changed or deleted 310 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/