Internet DRAFT - draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow
draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow
Network Working Group F. Arias
Internet-Draft ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track S. Noguchi
Expires: September 10, 2012 JPRS
March 9, 2012
Registry Data Escrow Specification
draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-03
Abstract
This document specifies the format and contents of Data Escrow
deposits targeted primarly 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 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 http://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 September 10, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
(http://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
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. General Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Root element <deposit> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Child <watermark> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Child <rdeMenu> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Child <deletes> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Child <contents> element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Extension Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Changes from version 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Changes from version 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.3. Changes from version 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
1. Introduction
Registry Data Escrow is the process by which an Internet 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 could not function and was
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
registration organization 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 the current generic top-level domains and it is
expected to be for new registries. Some country code top-level
domain managers are also currently escrowing data. There is also a
similar requirement for ICANN's generic top-level domain accredited
registrars.
This document specifies a format for Data Escrow deposits independent
of the objects being escrowed. An specific profile extending this
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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119].
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.
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
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 Watermark of another (Incremental or Differential)
Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the former Deposit MUST contain
the transactions of the later Deposit.
REGISTRY. A registration organization providing registration
services for a certain type of objects, e.g., domain names, IP number
resources, routing information.
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.
3. Problem Scope
Starting a few years ago, the issue of Registry continuity has been
carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. Various
organizations have carried out a risk analysis 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 especially with the advent of new TLDs, adding
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
complexity to this issue.
The main motivation for deveoloping this solution is rooted on the
domain name registry industry. However, the specification has been
designed to be as general as possible to allow other type of
registries to use the base specification and develop their own
profiles covering the objects used by other registration
organizations.
Therefore, it would seem beneficial to have a standardized
specification for Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any
Registry to submit its Deposits.
A solution to the problem at hand SHALL clearly 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 list and details of the registration services vary from
Registry to Registry, the solution SHALL provide mechanisms that
allow its extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of
the registration services.
Given the confidentiality and importance of some of the information
that would be handled in order to offer the registration services,
the solution SHALL define confidentiality and integrity mechanisms
when handling the registration data.
The solution 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 around Data Escrow and the overall question of
the use of Registry Data Escrow are outside of scope of this
document.
4. General Conventions
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 as specified in [RFC3339], with no offset
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
from the zero meridian.
5. Protocol Description
The following is a format for Data Escrow deposits as produced by a
Registry. Only the format of the objects deposited is defined,
nothing is prescribed about the way 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 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 deposits is
<deposit>. This element contains the following child elements:
watermark, deletes, contents, and extension. The latter is explained
in Section 7. This element also contains the following attributes:
o A "type" attribute that MUST be used to identify the kind of
deposit: FULL, INCR (Incremental) or DIFF (Differential).
o An "id" attribute that MUST be used to uniquely identify the
escrow deposit. Each registry is responsible for maintaining its
own escrow deposits identifier space to ensure uniqueness, e.g.,
using identifiers as described in Section 2.8 of [RFC5730].
o An OPTIONAL "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the
previous incremental, differential or full escrow deposit. This
attribute MUST be used in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type).
o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is used to identify resend
attempts in case of previous failure. The first time a deposit is
attempted to be sent, the attribute MUST be zero; The second
attempt to send (first resend attempt) the attribute MUST be set
to one; and so on. This would be used when for example, the
previous deposit was not received complete, it failed verification
at the receiving party, etc.
Example of root element object:
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
...
type="FULL"
id="20101017001" prevId="20101010001">
<rde:watermark>2010-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
<rde:deletes>
...
</rde:deletes>
<rde:contents>
...
</rde:contents>
</rde:deposit>
5.2. Child <watermark> element
A <watermark> element contains the data-time correspondent to the
Timeline Watermark of the deposit.
Example of <watermark> element object:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
...
type="FULL"
id="20101017001" prevId="20101010001">
<rde:watermark>2010-10-18T00:00:00Z</rde:watermark>
...
</rde:deposit>
5.3. Child <rdeMenu> element
This element ...
The <rdeMenu> element contains the following child elements:
o A <version> element that identify the RDE protocol version.
o One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs
representing the <contetns> and <deletes> element objects.
o An OPTIONAL <rdeExtension> element that contains one or more
<extURI> elements that contain namespace URIs representing object
extensions.
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
Example of <rdeMenu> element object:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
...
<rde:rdeMenu>
<rde:version>1.0</rde:version>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeContact-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeHost-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeDomain-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeRegistrar-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeIDN-1.0</rde:objURI>
<rde:objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeEppParams-1.0</rde:objURI>
</rde:rdeMenu>
...
</rde:deposit>
5.4. Child <deletes> element
This element SHOULD only 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 SHOULD NOT be present in Full deposits.
When rebuilding a registry it SHOULD be ignored if present in a Full
deposit.
The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the
identificator to be used to reference the object to be deleted.
Example of <deletes> element object:
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
...
<rde:deletes>
<rdeObj1:delete>
<rdeObj1:name>foo.test</rdeObj1:name>
<rdeObj1:name>bar.test</rdeObj1:name>
</rdeObj1:delete>
<rdeObj2:delete>
<rdeObj2:id>sh8013-TEST</rdeObj2:id>
<rdeObj2:id>co8013-TEST</rdeObj2:id>
</rdeObj2:delete>
</rde:deletes>
...
</rde:deposit>
5.5. Child <contents> element
This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit. It
MUST 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. This element MAY also contain an extension element
allowing extending the format.
In the case of Incremental or Differential deposits, the objects
indicate whether the object was added or modified after the base
previous deposit. In order to distinguish between one and the other,
it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in
the base previous deposit.
When applying Incremental or Differential deposits, i.e., when
rebuilding the registry from data escrow deposits, the order of the
<deletes> and <contents> elements is important. First, all the
deletes MUST be applied and then the adds and updates, i.e., first
apply what is in <deletes> and later what is in <contents>.
Example of <contents> element object:
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rde:deposit
xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
...
<rde:contents>
...
<rdeObj1:contents>
<rdeObj1:element1>
<rdeObj1:child1>Object1 specific.</rdeObj1:child1>
...
</rdeObj1:element1>
<rdeObj2:element2>
<rdeObj2:field1>Object2 specific.</rdeObj2:field1>
...
</rdeObj2:element2>
</rdeObj1:contents>
...
</rde:contents>
...
</rde:deposit>
6. Formal Syntax
6.1. RDE Schema
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
o Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
o Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
o Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
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:rdeDeletesType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<element name="contents" type="rde:rdeContentsType"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="type" type="rde:depositType"
use="required"/>
<attribute name="id" type="rde:depositIdType"
use="required"/>
<attribute name="prevId" type="rde:depositIdType"
use="optional"/>
<attribute name="resend" type="unsignedShort"
default="0"/>
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
</complexType>
<complexType name="rdeContentsType">
<sequence
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:contents"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="contents" type="rde:contentsType" abstract="true" />
<complexType name="contentsType">
<sequence
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:content"/>
<element name="extension" type="rde:extAnyType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="content" type="rde:contentType" abstract="true" />
<complexType name="contentType">
<sequence/>
</complexType>
<complexType name="rdeDeletesType">
<sequence
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element ref="rde:delete"/>
<element name="extension" type="rde:extAnyType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<element name="delete" type="rde:deleteType" abstract="true" />
<complexType name="deleteType">
<sequence/>
</complexType>
<!--
Type of deposit
-->
<simpleType name="depositType">
<restriction base="token">
<enumeration value="FULL"/>
<enumeration value="INCR"/>
<enumeration value="DIFF"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
<!--
Deposit identifier type
-->
<simpleType name="depositIdType">
<restriction base="token">
<pattern value="\w{1,13}"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
<!--
Identifies available object services.
-->
<complexType name="rdeMenuType">
<sequence>
<element name="version" type="rde:versionType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element name="objURI" type="anyURI"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element name="svcExtension" type="rde:extURIType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!--
Extension framework type
-->
<complexType name="extAnyType">
<sequence>
<any namespace="##other"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<complexType name="extURIType">
<sequence>
<element name="extURI" type="anyURI"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</complexType>
<!--
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>
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
</simpleType>
<!--
End of schema.
-->
</schema>
END
7. Extension Guidelines
TBD
8. 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.
9. 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: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
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: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document.
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 must take all the necessary
precautions like encrypting the data itself and/or the transport
channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data.
It is also of the utmost importance the authentication of the parties
passing data escrow deposit files. 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 the file was transmitted correctly
from the Registry, but also the contents are also "meaningful".
11. Acknowledgments
Parts of this document are based on EPP [RFC5730] and related RFCs by
Scott Hollenbeck.
TBD
12. Change History
12.1. Changes from version 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.
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
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.
12.2. Changes from version 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.
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
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.
12.3. Changes from version 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. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow March 2012
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Francisco Arias
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey 90292
United States of America
Phone: +1.310.823.9358
Email: francisco.arias@icann.org
Shoji Noguchi
Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
Chiyoda First Bldg. East 13F, 3-8-1 Nishi-Kanda
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0065
Japan
Phone: +81.3.5215.8451
Email: noguchi@jprs.co.jp
Arias & Noguchi Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 18]
