Network Working Group G. Lozano Internet-Draft ICANN Intended status: Standards Track Jan 2, 2019 Expires: July 6, 2019 Registry Data Escrow Specification draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-11 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 July 6, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 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 July 6, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. General Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Root element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.5. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.4. Changes from version 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.5. Changes from version 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.6. Changes from version 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.7. Changes from version 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.8. Changes from version 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.9. Changes from version 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.10. Changes from version 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.11. Changes from version 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1. Introduction Registry Data Escrow is the process by which an 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 can not 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. Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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", "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. 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) Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the more recent Deposit MUST contain all the transactions of the earlier 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 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. Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 Since the details of the registration services provided 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 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 The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposits is . This element contains the following child elements: watermark, deletes and contents. This element also contains the following attributes: Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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: 2010-10-18T00:00:00Z ... ... 5.2. Child element A REQUIRED element contains the data-time corresponding to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. Example of element object: Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 2010-10-18T00:00:00Z ... 5.3. Child element This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow deposit. A REQUIRED element contains the following child elements: o A REQUIRED element that identifies the RDE protocol version. o One or more elements that contain namespace URIs representing the and element objects. Example of element object: 1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeContact-1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeHost-1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeDomain-1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeRegistrar-1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeIDN-1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeNNDN-1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeEppParams-1.0 ... 5.4. Child 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 July 6, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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 element object: foo.test bar.test sh8013-TEST co8013-TEST ... 5.5. Child 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 elements is important, as is the relative order of the elements. All the elements MUST be applied first, in the order that they appear. All the elements MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. If an object is present in the section of several Deposits (e.g. Full and Differential) the registry data from the latest Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 Deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be used when rebuilding the registry. Example of element object: ... Object1 specific. ... Object2 specific. ... ... ... 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 July 6, 2019 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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 Registry Data Escrow schema Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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 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 July 6, 2019 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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. Implementation Status Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space Organization: ICANN Name: ICANN Registry Agreement Description: the ICANN Base Registry Agreement requires Registries, Data Escrow Agents, and ICANN to implement this specification. ICANN receives daily notifications from Data Escrow Agents confirming that more than 1,200 gTLDs are sending deposits that comply with this specification. ICANN receives on a weekly basis per gTLD, from more than 1,200 gTLD registries, a Bulk Registration Data Access file that also complies with this specification. In addition, ICANN is aware of Registry Service Provider transitions using data files that conform to this specification. Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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 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. 11. 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 Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 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. 12. Change History 12.1. Changes from version 00 to 01 1. Included DNSSEC elements as part of the basic element as defined in RFC 5910. 2. Included RGP elements as part of the basic element as defined in RFC 3915. 3. Added support for IDNs and IDN variants. 4. Eliminated the element and all its subordinate objects, except . 5. Renamed to and included it directly under root element. 6. Renamed root element to . 7. Added element under element. 8. Added element under element. 9. Reversed the order of the and elements. 10. Removed minOccurs="0". 11. Added element under root element. 12. Added element under element. 13. Removed element from element. 14. Populated the "Security Considerations" section. 15. Populated the "Internationalization Considerations" section. 16. Populated the "Extension Example" section. 17. Added element under element. Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 18. Added element under element. 19. Added 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 optional. 4. Introduced substitutionGroup as the mechanism for extending the protocol. 5. Moved element to be child of 6. Text improvements in the Introduction, Terminology, and Problem Scope per Jay's suggestion. 7. Removed from and added instead, which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) transfer request 8. Removed from and added 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 elements to be child of and , additionally removed element from ,, , and elements. 3. Modified the definition of and . 4. Added element under element. 5. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 12.4. Changes from version 03 to 04 1. Removed objects. 2. Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section. 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 12.5. 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. 12.6. Changes from version 05 to 06 1. Fix resend definition. 12.7. Changes from version 06 to 07 1. Editorial updates. 2. schemaLocation removed from RDE Schema. 12.8. Changes from version 07 to 08 1. Ping update 12.9. Changes from version 08 to 09 1. Ping update. 12.10. Changes from version 09 to 10 1. Implementation Status section was added 12.11. Changes from version 10 to 11 1. Ping update. 13. References Lozano Expires July 6, 2019 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Registry Data Escrow Jan 2019 13.1. 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, . [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, . 13.2. Informative References [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, . [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, . 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 July 6, 2019 [Page 18]