Registry Data Escrow Specification
draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (regext WG)
Last updated 2020-04-07
Replaces draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Aug 2019 - Submit for publicati... )
Document shepherd James Gould
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-01-10)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date On agenda of 2020-04-09 IESG telechat
Has 5 DISCUSSes. Needs 3 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Barry Leiba
Send notices to James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
Network Working Group                                          G. Lozano
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track                            Apr 07, 2020
Expires: October 9, 2020

                   Registry Data Escrow Specification
                    draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07

Abstract

   This document specifies the format and contents of data escrow
   deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries.  However, the
   specification was designed to be independent of the underlying
   objects that are being escrowed, therefore it could be used for
   purposes other than domain name registries.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 9, 2020.

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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  General Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Protocol Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Root element <deposit>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  RDE Schema  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Implementation in the gTLD space  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   13. Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     13.1.  Changes from 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     13.2.  Changes from 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     13.3.  Changes from 02 to 03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.4.  Changes from 03 to 04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.5.  Changes from 04 to 05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.6.  Changes from 05 to 06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.7.  Changes from 06 to 07  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.8.  Changes from 07 to 08  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     13.9.  Changes from 08 to 09  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     13.10. Changes from 09 to 10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     13.11. Changes from 10 to 11  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01  . . . . . .  16
     13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02  . . . . . .  16
     13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03  . . . . . .  16
     13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04  . . . . . .  16
     13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05  . . . . . .  17
     13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06  . . . . . .  17
     13.19. Changes from version REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07  . . . . . .  17
   14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   16. Example of a Incremental Deposit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   17. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     17.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     17.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

1.  Introduction

   Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically
   submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent.  These
   deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume
   operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling
   to facilitate an orderly transfer of service.  For example, for a
   domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would
   include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g.,
   names, contacts, name servers, etc.

   The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration
   services, for the benefit of Internet users.  The beneficiaries of a
   registry are not just those registering information there, but all
   relying parties that need to identify the owners of objects.

   In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is
   a requirement for generic top-level domains and some country code
   top-level domain managers are also currently escrowing data.  There
   is also a similar requirement for ICANN-accredited domain registrars.

   This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent
   of the objects being escrowed.  A specification is required for each
   type of registry/set of objects that is expected to be escrowed.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Deposit.  Deposits can be of three kinds: Full, Differential or
   Incremental.  For all kinds of deposits, the universe of registry
   objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary
   in order to offer the registry services.

   Differential Deposit.  Contains data that reflects all transactions
   involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous
   Full, Incremental or Differential Deposit, as the case may be.
   Differential Deposit files will contain information from all database
   objects that were added, modified or deleted since the previous
   deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark.

   Domain Name.  See definition of Domain name in [RFC8499].

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   Escrow Agent.  The organization designated by the registry or the
   third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data escrow deposits
   from the registry.

   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 data that reflects all transactions
   involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous
   Full Deposit.  Incremental Deposit files will contain information
   from all database objects that were added, modified or deleted since
   the previous Full Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline
   Watermark.  If the Timeline Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were
   to cover the Timeline Watermark of another (Incremental or
   Differential) Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the more recent
   deposit MUST contain all the transactions of the earlier deposit.

   Registrar.  See definition of Registrar in [RFC8499].

   Registry.  See definition of Registry in [RFC8499].

   Third-Party Beneficiary.  Is the organization that, under
   extraordinary circumstances, would receive the escrow deposits the
   registry transferred to the escrow agent.  This organization could be
   a backup registry, registry regulator, contracting party of the
   registry, etc.

   Timeline Watermark.  Point in time on which to base the collecting of
   database objects for a deposit.  Deposits are expected to be
   consistent to that point in time.

   Top-Level Domain.  See definition of Top-Level Domain (TLD) 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.  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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its
   own specification.  It is anticipated that more registries will be
   implementing escrow especially with an increasing number of domain
   registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue.

   It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for
   Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its
   deposits.

   While the domain name industry has been the main target for this
   specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible.

   Specifications covering the objects used by registration
   organizations shall identify the format and contents of the deposits
   a registry has to make, such that a different registry would be able
   to rebuild the registration services of the former, without its help,
   in a timely manner, with minimum disruption to its users.

   Since the details of the registration services provided vary from
   registry to registry, specifications covering the objects used by
   registration organizations shall provide mechanisms that allow its
   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 private keys.

   Details that are a matter of policy should be identified as such for
   the benefit of the implementers.

   Non-technical issues concerning data escrow, such as whether to
   escrow data and under which purposes the data may be used, are
   outside of scope of this document.

4.  General Conventions

   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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   The XML namespace prefix "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" with the
   corresponding namespaces "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" are used as example data escrow
   objects.

4.1.  Date and Time

   Numerous fields indicate "dates", such as the creation and expiry
   dates for objects.  These fields SHALL contain timestamps indicating
   the date and time in UTC, specified in Internet Date/Time Format (see
   [RFC3339], Section 5.6) with the time-offset specified as "Z".

5.  Protocol Description

   The following is a format for data escrow deposits as produced by a
   registry.  The deposits are represented in XML.  Only the format of
   the objects deposited is defined, nothing is prescribed about the
   method used to transfer such deposits between the registry and the
   escrow agent or vice versa.

   The protocol intends to be object agnostic allowing the "overload" of
   abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute of the XML
   Schema element to define the actual elements of an object to be
   escrowed.

5.1.  Root 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) or DIFF (Differential).

   o  A REQUIRED "id" attribute that is used to uniquely identify the
      escrow deposit.  Each registry is responsible for maintaining its
      own escrow deposits' identifier space to ensure uniqueness.

   o  A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous
      Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit.  This attribute is
      REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in
      Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full
      Deposits ("FULL" type).

   o  An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the
      escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving
      party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

      registry for that specific date.  The first time a deposit is
      generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0".  If a
      deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to
      "1", and so on.

   The <deposit> element contains the following the child elements:

5.1.1.  Child <watermark> element

   A REQUIRED <watermark> element contains the data-time corresponding
   to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit.

5.1.2.  Child <rdeMenu> element

   This element contains auxiliary information of 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 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

   This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or
   Differential.  It contains the list of objects that were deleted
   since the base previous deposit.  Each object in this section SHALL
   contain an ID for the object deleted.

   This section of the deposit MUST NOT be present in Full Deposits.
   When rebuilding a registry it MUST be ignored if present in a Full
   Deposit.

   The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the
   identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted.

5.1.4.  Child <contents> element

   This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit.  It
   SHOULD be present in all type of deposits.  It contains the data for
   the objects to be escrowed.  The actual objects have to be specified
   individually.

   In the case of Incremental or Differential Deposits, the objects
   indicate whether the object was added or modified after the base

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   previous deposit.  In order to distinguish between one and the other,
   it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in
   the previous deposit.

   When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding
   the registry from data escrow deposits) the relative order of the
   <deletes> elements is important, as is the relative order of the
   <contents> elements.  All the <deletes> elements MUST be applied
   first, in the order that they appear.  All the <contents> elements
   MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear.

   If an object is present in the <contents> section of several deposits
   (e.g.  Full and Differential) the registry data from the latest
   deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be used when
   rebuilding the registry.

6.  Formal Syntax

6.1.  RDE Schema

  BEGIN
  <?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"/>

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

    </complexType>

    <!-- Menu type -->
    <complexType name="rdeMenuType">
      <sequence>
        <element name="version" type="rde:versionType"/>
        <element name="objURI" type="anyURI" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      </sequence>
    </complexType>

    <!-- Deletes Type -->
    <complexType name="deletesType">
      <sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <element ref="rde:delete"/>
      </sequence>
    </complexType>

    <element name="delete" type="rde:deleteType" abstract="true" />
    <complexType name="deleteType">
      <complexContent>
        <restriction base="anyType"/>
      </complexContent>
    </complexType>

    <!-- Contents Type -->
    <complexType name="contentsType">
      <sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <element ref="rde:content"/>
      </sequence>
    </complexType>

    <element name="content" type="rde:contentType" 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 -->

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

    <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>

    <!-- Auxiliary element to identify a registrar -->
    <simpleType name="clIDType">
      <restriction base="token">
        <minLength value="3"/>
        <maxLength value="16"/>
      </restriction>
    </simpleType>

    <complexType name="rrType">
      <simpleContent>
        <extension base="rde:clIDType">
          <attribute name="client" type="rde:clIDType"/>
        </extension>
      </simpleContent>
    </complexType>
  </schema>
  END

7.  Internationalization Considerations

   Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native
   support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and
   its more compact representations including UTF-8.  Conformant XML
   processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16.  Though XML includes
   provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use
   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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   Registration request for the RDE namespace:

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0

      Registrant Contact: IETF <regext@ietf.org>

      XML: None.  Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.

   Registration request for the RDE XML schema:

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0

      Registrant Contact: IETF <regext@ietf.org>

      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

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   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.

   Coverage: all aspects 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.  Security Considerations

   This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used
   in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only
   specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a
   registry from deposits without intervention from the original
   registry.

   Depending on local policies, some elements or, most likely, the whole
   deposit will be considered confidential.  As such, the registry
   transmitting the data to the escrow agent SHOULD take all the
   necessary precautions such as encrypting the data itself and/or the
   transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data.

   Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is
   also of the utmost importance.  The escrow agent SHOULD properly
   authenticate the identity of the registry before accepting data
   escrow deposits.  In a similar manner, the registry SHOULD
   authenticate the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any
   data.

   Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent SHOULD use integrity
   checking mechanisms to ensure the data transmitted is what the source
   intended.  Validation of the contents by the escrow agent is
   RECOMMENDED to ensure not only that the file was transmitted
   correctly from the registry, but also that the contents are
   "meaningful".

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

11.  Privacy Considerations

   This specification defines a format that may be used to escrow
   personal data.  The process of data escrow is governed by a legal
   document agreed by the parties, and such legal document must regulate
   the particularities regarding the protection of personal data.

12.  Acknowledgments

   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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

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.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

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.

14.  Example of a Full Deposit

   Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and
   rdeObj2:

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rde:deposit
     xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
     xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
     xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
     type="FULL"
     id="20191017001">
     <rde:watermark>2019-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
     <rde:rdeMenu>
       <rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
       <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
       <rde:objURI>urn:ietf: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.  Example of a Differential Deposit

   Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects
   rdeObj1 and rdeObj2:

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rde:deposit
     xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
     xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
     xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
     type="DIFF"
     id="20191017001" prevId="20191016001">
     <rde:watermark>2019-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
     <rde:rdeMenu>
       <rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
         <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
         <rde:objURI>urn:ietf: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.  Example of a Incremental Deposit

   Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects
   rdeObj1 and rdeObj2:

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rde:deposit
     xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
     xmlns:rdeObj1="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0"
     xmlns:rdeObj2="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0"
     type="INCR"
     id="20191017001" prevId="20191010001">
     <rde:watermark>2019-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
     <rde:rdeMenu>
       <rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
       <rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0</rde:objURI>
       <rde:objURI>urn:ietf: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.  References

17.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <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>.

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft            Registry Data Escrow                  Apr 2020

   [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., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and
              F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
              Edition) REC-xml-20081126", November 2008,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.

   [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
              Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn,
              "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition REC-
              xmlschema-1-20041028", October 2004,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/>.

   [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
              Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
              Second Edition REC-xmlschema-2-20041028", October 2004,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/>.

17.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [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>.

Author's Address

   Gustavo Lozano
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
   Los Angeles  90292
   United States of America

   Phone: +1.310.823.9358
   Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org

Lozano                   Expires October 9, 2020               [Page 21]