Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Lozano
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8909 ICANN
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Jun 1, 2020
Expires: December 3, November 2020
ISSN: 2070-1721
Registry Data Escrow Specification
draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-10
Abstract
This document specifies the format and contents of data escrow
deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries. The
specification is designed to be independent of the underlying objects
that are being escrowed 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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 December 3, 2020.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8909.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Root element Element <deposit> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Rebuilding the registry Registry from data escrow deposits . . . . 8 Data Escrow Deposits
6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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.
11. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15.
12. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16.
13. Example of a an Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17.
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17.1.
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17.2.
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgments
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
Registry Data Escrow (RDE) is the process by which a registry
periodically submits data deposits to a third-party third party called an escrow
agent. These deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party 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 of the objects related to registered
domain names, e.g., names, contacts, name servers, etc. servers.
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, 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 Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) (e.g.,
Specification 2 of the ICANN Base Registry Agreement, Agreement; see [ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731])
[ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]), and some country code top-level domain TLD (ccTLD) managers
are also currently escrowing data. There is also a similar
requirement for ICANN-
accredited ICANN-accredited domain registrars.
This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent
of the objects being escrowed. An independent specification is
required for each type of registry/set of objects that is expected to
be escrowed.
The format for data escrow deposits is specified using version 1.0 of
the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126], and XML Schema notation as described in
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] and [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028].
Readers are advised to read the terminology section Section 2 ("Terminology") carefully to
understand the precise meanings of Differential and Incremental
Deposits
Deposits, as the definitions used in this document are different from
the definitions typically used in the domain of data backups.
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
Deposit: There are three kinds: kinds of deposits: Full, Differential or Differential, and
Incremental. For all three kinds of deposits, the universe of
registry objects to be considered for data escrow are those is comprised of
any objects necessary
in order required to offer the registry services.
Differential Deposit. Contains Deposit: A Differential Deposit contains data that
reflects all transactions involving the database that were not
reflected in the last previous Full, Incremental Incremental, or Differential
Deposit, as the case may be. Differential Deposit files will
contain information from all database objects that were added, modified
modified, or deleted since the previous deposit was completed as
of its defined Timeline Watermark.
Domain Name. Name: See the definition of Domain name "domain name" in [RFC8499].
Escrow Agent. The Agent: An escrow agent is the organization designated by the
registry or the third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data
escrow deposits from the registry.
Full Deposit. Contains Deposit: A Full Deposit contains the registry data that
reflects the current and complete registry database and will
consist of data that reflects the state of the registry as of a
defined Timeline Watermark for the deposit.
Incremental Deposit. Contains Deposit: An 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 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 (i.e., one or more Incremental or Differential
Deposits exist for the period between the Timeline Watermark of a
Full Deposit and an Incremental or Differential Deposit) the Timeline Watermark of
another Incremental or Differential Deposit since the last Full
Deposit, Deposit), the more
recent deposit MUST contain all of the transactions of the earlier
deposit.
Registrar.
Registrar: See the definition of Registrar "registrar" in [RFC8499].
Registry.
Registry: See the definition of Registry "registry" in [RFC8499].
Third-Party Beneficiary. Is Beneficiary: A third-party beneficiary is the
organization that, under extraordinary circumstances, would
receive the escrow deposits the registry transferred to the escrow
agent. This organization could be a backup registry, registry
regulator, contracting party of the registry, etc.
Timeline Watermark. Point Watermark: The Timeline Watermark is the point in time on
which to base the collecting of database objects for a deposit.
Deposits are expected to be consistent to with that point in time.
Top-Level Domain. Domain (TLD): See the definition of Top-Level Domain (TLD) "Top-Level Domain" in
[RFC8499].
3. Problem Scope
In the past few years, the issue of registry continuity has been
carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. spaces. Various
organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business
continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize.
One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD
space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the continuity of
registry services in the extreme case of registry failure.
So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its
own specification. It is anticipated that more registries will be
implementing escrow escrow, especially with an increasing number of domain
registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue.
It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for
Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its
deposits.
While the domain name industry has been the main target for this
specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible.
Specifications covering the objects used by registration
organizations shall identify the format and contents of the deposits
a registry has to make, such that a different registry would be able
to rebuild the registration services of the former, without its help,
in a timely manner, manner and with minimum disruption to its users.
Since the details of the registration services provided vary from
registry to registry, specifications covering the objects used by
registration organizations shall provide mechanisms that allow its
extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of the
registration services.
Given the requirement for confidentiality and the importance of
accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer
registration services, parties using this specification shall define
confidentiality and integrity mechanisms for handling the
registration data.
Specifications covering the objects used by registration
organizations shall not include in the specification transient
objects that can be recreated by the new registry, particularly those
of delicate confidentiality, e.g., DNSSEC KSK/ZSK (Key Signing Key /
Zone Signing Key) 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 for what purposes the data may be used, are outside of
the scope of this document.
Parties using this specification shall use a signaling mechanism to
control the transmission, reception reception, and validation of data escrow
deposits. The definition of such a signaling mechanism is out of outside
the scope of this document.
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 prefixes "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" "rdeObj2", with the
corresponding namespaces "urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and
"urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
"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 parameter specified as
"Z".
5. Protocol Description
The following is a format for data escrow deposits as produced by a
registry. registry is
defined below. The deposits are represented in XML. XML (Section 6).
Only the format of the objects deposited is defined. Nothing is prescribed about This document
does not prescribe the method used to transfer such deposits between
the registry and the escrow agent or vice versa.
The protocol intends to be object agnostic agnostic, allowing the "overload"
of abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] 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 Element <deposit>
The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is
<deposit>.
The <deposit> element contains the following attributes:
o
* A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of
deposit:
*
- FULL: Full.
*
- INCR: Incremental.
*
- 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 Differential, or Full Deposit. This attribute is
REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in
Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full
Deposits ("FULL" type).
o
* An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the
escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving
party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the
registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is
generated
generated, the attribute is either (1) is omitted or (2) MUST be "0".
If a deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be
set to "1", and so on.
The <deposit> element contains the following the child elements:
5.1.1. Child <watermark> element Element
A REQUIRED <watermark> element contains the date-time [RFC3339]
corresponding to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit.
5.1.2. Child <rdeMenu> element Element
This element contains auxiliary information of regarding the data escrow
deposit.
A REQUIRED <rdeMenu> element contains the following child elements:
o
* A REQUIRED <version> element that identifies the RDE protocol
version, this
version. This value MUST be 1.0.
o
* One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs
representing the <contents> and <deletes> element objects.
5.1.3. Child <deletes> element Element
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.
5.1.4. Child <contents> element Element
For Full Deposits 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.
5.2. Rebuilding the registry Registry from data escrow deposits Data Escrow Deposits
When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding
the registry from data escrow deposits), the relative order of the
<deletes> and <contents> elements is important because dependencies
may exist between the objects. All of the <deletes> elements MUST be
applied first, in the order that in which they appear. All of the
<contents> elements MUST be applied next, in the order that in which they
appear.
If an object is present in the <contents> or <deletes> section of
several deposits (e.g. (e.g., Full and Differential) 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 either the <contents> or <deletes> elements in a
single deposit.
When rebuilding a registry, the <deletes> 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 <CODE BEGINS> and END <CODE ENDS> 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
<CODE BEGINS>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<annotation>
<documentation>
Registry Data Escrow schema
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- Root element -->
<element name="deposit" type="rde:escrowDepositType"/>
<!-- RDE types -->
<complexType name="escrowDepositType">
<sequence>
<element name="watermark" type="dateTime"/>
<element name="rdeMenu" type="rde:rdeMenuType"/>
<element name="deletes" type="rde:deletesType" minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="contents" type="rde:contentsType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="type" type="rde:depositTypeType"
use="required"/>
<attribute name="id" type="rde:depositIdType" use="required"/>
<attribute name="prevId" type="rde:depositIdType"/>
<attribute name="resend" type="unsignedShort" default="0"/>
</complexType>
<!-- Menu type -->
<complexType name="rdeMenuType">
<sequence>
<element name="version" type="rde:versionType"/>
<element name="objURI" type="anyURI" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!-- Deletes Type type -->
<complexType name="deletesType">
<sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:delete"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="delete" type="rde:deleteType" abstract="true" /> abstract="true"/>
<complexType name="deleteType">
<complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType"/>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<!-- Contents Type type -->
<complexType name="contentsType">
<sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:content"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="content" type="rde:contentType" abstract="true" /> abstract="true"/>
<complexType name="contentType">
<complexContent>
<restriction base="anyType"/>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<!-- Type of deposit -->
<simpleType name="depositTypeType">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="FULL"/>
<enumeration value="INCR"/>
<enumeration value="DIFF"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- Deposit identifier type -->
<simpleType name="depositIdType">
<restriction base="token">
<pattern value="\w{1,13}"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!-- A RDE version number is a dotted pair of decimal numbers -->
<simpleType name="versionType">
<restriction base="token">
<pattern value="[1-9]+\.[0-9]+"/>
<enumeration value="1.0"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</schema>
END
<CODE ENDS>
7. Internationalization Considerations
Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native
support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and
its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML
processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes
provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use
of an "encoding" attribute in an <?xml?> declaration, use of UTF-8 is
RECOMMENDED.
8. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI
assignments have been registered by the IANA.
Registration request 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
[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, character set 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
its more compact representations, including UTF-8. Conformant XML
processors recognize both UTF-8 and
working groups to assign due consideration UTF-16. Though XML includes
provisions to documents that have identify and use other character encodings through the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence
use of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made an "encoding" attribute in an <?xml?> declaration, the implemented protocols
more mature. It use of
UTF-8 is up RECOMMENDED.
8. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to the individual working groups describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to use this
information as they see fit".
9.1. Implementation a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI
assignments have been registered by the gTLD space
Organization: ICANN
Name: ICANN Registry Agreement
Description: IANA.
Registration for 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 RDE namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. ICANN receives on a weekly basis per gTLD, from more
than 1,200 gTLD registries, a Bulk
Registration Data Access file that
also complies with this specification. In addition, ICANN is aware
of Registry Service Provider transitions using data files that
conform to this specification.
Level of maturity: production.
Coverage: all aspects for the RDE XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
See Section 6 ("Formal Syntax") of this specification are implemented.
Version compatibility: versions 03 - 08 are known to be implemented.
Contact: gustavo.lozano@icann.org
URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-
agreements-en
10. document.
9. Security Considerations
This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used
in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only
specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a
registry from deposits without intervention from the original
registry.
Depending on local policies, some elements, elements -- or, most likely, the
whole deposit -- will be considered confidential. As such, the
parties SHOULD take all the necessary precautions precautions, such as encrypting the
data at rest and in transit to avoid inadvertent disclosure of
private data. Regardless of the precautions taken by the parties
regarding data at rest and in transit, authentication credentials
MUST NOT be escrowed.
Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is
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, Similarly, the registry MUST authenticate the
identity of the escrow agent before submitting any data.
Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent MUST use integrity integrity-
checking mechanisms to ensure that 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, registry but also that the contents are
"meaningful".
| Note: if If Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used when providing
| an escrow services, service, the recommendations in [RFC7525] MUST be
| implemented.
11.
10. 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 upon by the parties, and such a legal document must
ensure that privacy-sensitive and/or personal data receives the
required protection.
14.
11. Example of a Full Deposit
Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and
rdeObj2:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="FULL"
id="20191018001">
<rde:watermark>2019-10-17T23:59:59Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0</rde:objURI>
</rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>fsh8013-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents>
</rde:deposit>
15.
12. Example of a Differential Deposit
Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects
rdeObj1 and rdeObj2:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="DIFF"
id="20191019001" prevId="20191018001">
<rde:watermark>2019-10-18T23:59:59Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0</rde:objURI>
</rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents>
</rde:deposit>
16.
13. Example of a an Incremental Deposit
Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects
rdeObj1 and rdeObj2:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
type="INCR"
id="20200317001" prevId="20200314001">
<rde:watermark>2020-03-16T23:59:59Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:example:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0</rde:objURI>
</rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:deletes>
<rdeObj1:delete>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE1</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:delete>
<rdeObj2:delete>
<rdeObj2:id>fsh8013-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:delete>
</rde:deletes>
<rde:contents>
<rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj1:name>EXAMPLE2</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:rdeObj1>
<rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
<rdeObj2:id>sh8014-EXAMPLE</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:rdeObj2>
</rde:contents>
</rde:deposit>
17.
14. References
17.1.
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Ed., Paoli, J., Ed., Sperberg-McQueen, C., C.M.,
Ed., Maler, E., Ed., and F. Yergeau, Ed., "Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition) REC-xml-20081126", Edition)", REC-xml-
20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
Thompson, H., H.S., Ed., Beech, D., Ed., Maloney, M., Ed., and
N. Mendelsohn, Ed., "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition REC-
xmlschema-1-20041028",
Edition", REC-xmlschema-1-20041028, October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. V., Ed. and A. Malhotra, Ed., "XML Schema Part
2: Datatypes Second Edition REC-xmlschema-2-20041028", Edition", REC-xmlschema-2-20041028,
October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/>.
17.2.
14.2. Informative References
[ICANN-GTLD-RA-20170731]
ICANN, "Base Registry Agreement 2017-07-31", Agreement", 31 July 2017,
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/
agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
12.
Acknowledgments
Special suggestions that have been were 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 Modi, and
Alexander Mayrhofer.
Shoji Noguchi and Francisco Arias participated as co-authors until coauthors through
version 07 providing of draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow (the precursor
to this document) and provided invaluable support for this document.
Author's Address
Gustavo Lozano
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles Angeles, CA 90292
United States of America
Phone: +1.310.823.9358
Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org