Registry Data Escrow Specification
draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Gustavo Lozano Ibarra | ||
Last updated | 2018-06-13 | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow, RFC 8909 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | |||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-09
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 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. 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 main motivation for developing this solution is rooted on the domain name industry, the specification has been designed to be as general as possible. This allows other types of registries to use the base specification and develop their own specifications covering the objects used by other registration organizations. 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 details of the registration services provided vary from Registry to Registry, the solution SHALL provide mechanisms that Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 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, the solution SHALL define confidentiality and integrity mechanisms for 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 concerning Data Escrow, such as whether to escrow data and under which purposes the data may be used, are outside of scope of this document. 4. General Conventions 4.1. 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 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 and contents. This element also contains the following attributes: Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 o A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of deposit: 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, 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 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 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. Example of root 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:deletes> ... </rde:deletes> <rde:contents> ... </rde:contents> </rde:deposit> 5.2. Child <watermark> element A REQUIRED <watermark> element contains the data-time corresponding to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. Example of <watermark> element object: Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 <?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 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. o One or more <objURI> elements that contain namespace URIs representing the <contents> and <deletes> element objects. 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:rdeNNDN-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 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. Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 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 identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted. Example of <deletes> element object: <?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. 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 (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 Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 Deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be used when rebuilding the registry. Example of <contents> element object: <?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 Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 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 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:eppcom="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" elementFormDefault="qualified"> <annotation> <documentation> Registry Data Escrow schema </documentation> </annotation> <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"/> <!-- 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"/> </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> Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 <!-- 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 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 --> <simpleType name="depositIdType"> <restriction base="token"> Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 <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> <complexType name="rrType"> <simpleContent> <extension base="eppcom:clIDType"> <attribute name="client" type="eppcom: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. 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: Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this document. See the "Formal Syntax" section of this 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 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. Mutual authentication of both parties passing data escrow deposit files is 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. It is recommended that specifications defining format and semantics for particular business models define an algorithm that Escrow Agents and Third-Party Beneficiaries could use to validate the contents of the data escrow deposit. 10. 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. Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 11. Change History 11.1. 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. 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. Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 11.2. 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. 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. 11.3. 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. 11.4. Changes from version 03 to 04 1. Removed <eppParams> objects. 2. Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section. Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 11.5. Changes from version 04 to 05 1. Fixes to the XSD 2. Extension Guidelines moved to dnrd-mappings draft 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 11.6. Changes from version 05 to 06 1. Fix resend definition. 11.7. Changes from version 06 to 07 1. Editorial updates. 2. schemaLocation removed from RDE Schema. 11.8. Changes from version 07 to 08 1. Ping update 11.9. Changes from version 08 to 09 1. Ping update. 12. References 12.1. 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>. 12.2. 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>. Lozano Expires December 15, 2018 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jun 2018 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>. 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 December 15, 2018 [Page 17]