idnits 2.17.1 draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-10.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (Jun 27, 2018) is 2128 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Lozano 3 Internet-Draft ICANN 4 Intended status: Standards Track Jun 27, 2018 5 Expires: December 29, 2018 7 Registry Data Escrow Specification 8 draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow-10 10 Abstract 12 This document specifies the format and contents of data escrow 13 deposits targeted primarily for domain name registries. However, the 14 specification was designed to be independent of the underlying 15 objects that are being escrowed, therefore it could be used for 16 purposes other than domain name registries. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2018. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 4. General Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 4.1. Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 5.1. Root element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 5.2. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 5.3. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 5.4. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 5.5. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 68 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 70 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 71 12. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 72 12.1. Changes from version 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 12.2. Changes from version 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 12.3. Changes from version 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 75 12.4. Changes from version 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 76 12.5. Changes from version 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 77 12.6. Changes from version 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 78 12.7. Changes from version 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 12.8. Changes from version 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 80 12.9. Changes from version 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 81 12.10. Changes from version 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 82 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 83 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 84 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 85 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 87 1. Introduction 89 Registry Data Escrow is the process by which an Registry periodically 90 submits data deposits to a third party called an Escrow Agent. These 91 deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third party to resume 92 operations if the registry can not function and is unable or 93 unwilling to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, 94 for a domain name registry or registrar the data to be deposited 95 would include all the objects related to registered domain names, 96 e.g., names, contacts, name servers, etc. 98 The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration 99 services, for the benefit of Internet users. The beneficiaries of a 100 registry are not just those registering information there, but all 101 relying parties that need to identify the owners of objects. 103 In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is 104 a requirement for generic top-level domains and some country code 105 top-level domain managers are also currently escrowing data. There 106 is also a similar requirement for ICANN-accredited domain registrars. 108 This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent 109 of the objects being escrowed. A specification is required for each 110 type of registry/set of objects that is expected to be escrowed. 112 2. Terminology 114 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 115 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 116 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119]. 118 DEPOSIT. Deposits can be of three kinds: Full, Differential or 119 Incremental. For all kinds of Deposits, the Universe of Registry 120 objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary 121 in order to offer the Registry Services. 123 DIFFERENTIAL DEPOSIT. Contains data that reflects all transactions 124 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 125 Full, Incremental or Differential Deposit, as the case may be. 126 Differential deposit files will contain information from all database 127 objects that were added, modified or deleted since the previous 128 Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark. 130 ESCROW AGENT. The organization designated by the Registry or the 131 Third-Party Beneficiary to receive and guard Data Escrow Deposits 132 from the Registry. 134 FULL DEPOSIT. Contains the Registry Data that reflects the current 135 and complete Registry Database and will consist of data that reflects 136 the state of the registry as of a defined Timeline Watermark for the 137 deposit. 139 INCREMENTAL DEPOSIT. Contains data that reflects all transactions 140 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 141 Full Deposit. Incremental Deposit files will contain information 142 from all database objects that were added, modified or deleted since 143 the previous Full Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline 144 Watermark. If the Timeline Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were 145 to cover the Watermark of another (Incremental or Differential) 146 Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the more recent Deposit MUST 147 contain all the transactions of the earlier Deposit. 149 REGISTRY. A registration organization providing registration 150 services for a certain type of objects, e.g., domain names, IP number 151 resources, routing information. 153 THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY. Is the organization that, under 154 extraordinary circumstances, would receive the escrow Deposits the 155 Registry transferred to the Escrow Agent. This organization could be 156 a backup Registry, Registry regulator, contracting party of the 157 Registry, etc. 159 TIMELINE WATERMARK. Point in time on which to base the collecting of 160 database objects for a Deposit. Deposits are expected to be 161 consistent to that point in time. 163 3. Problem Scope 165 In the past few years, the issue of Registry continuity has been 166 carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. Various 167 organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business 168 continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize. 170 One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD 171 space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the Continuity of 172 Registry Services in the extreme case of Registry failure. 174 So far, almost every Registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its 175 own specification. It is anticipated that more Registries will be 176 implementing escrow especially with an increasing number of domain 177 registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue. 179 It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for 180 Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any Registry to submit its 181 deposits. 183 While the main motivation for developing this solution is rooted on 184 the domain name industry, the specification has been designed to be 185 as general as possible. This allows other types of registries to use 186 the base specification and develop their own specifications covering 187 the objects used by other registration organizations. 189 A solution to the problem at hand SHALL clearly identify the format 190 and contents of the deposits a Registry has to make, such that a 191 different Registry would be able to rebuild the registration services 192 of the former, without its help, in a timely manner, with minimum 193 disruption to its users. 195 Since the details of the registration services provided vary from 196 Registry to Registry, the solution SHALL provide mechanisms that 197 allow its extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of 198 the registration services. 200 Given the requirement for confidentiality and the importance of 201 accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer 202 registration services, the solution SHALL define confidentiality and 203 integrity mechanisms for handling the registration data. 205 The solution SHALL NOT include in the specification transient objects 206 that can be recreated by the new Registry, particularly those of 207 delicate confidentiality, e.g., DNSSEC KSK/ZSK private keys. 209 Details that are a matter of policy SHOULD be identified as such for 210 the benefit of the implementers. 212 Non-technical issues concerning Data Escrow, such as whether to 213 escrow data and under which purposes the data may be used, are 214 outside of scope of this document. 216 4. General Conventions 218 4.1. Date and Time 220 Numerous fields indicate "dates", such as the creation and expiry 221 dates for objects. These fields SHALL contain timestamps indicating 222 the date and time in UTC, specified in Internet Date/Time Format (see 223 [RFC3339], Section 5.6) with the time-offset specified as "Z". 225 5. Protocol Description 227 The following is a format for Data Escrow deposits as produced by a 228 Registry. The deposits are represented in XML. Only the format of 229 the objects deposited is defined, nothing is prescribed about the 230 method used to transfer such deposits between the Registry and the 231 Escrow Agent or vice versa. 233 The protocol intends to be object agnostic allowing the "overload" of 234 abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute to define 235 the actual elements of an object to be escrowed. 237 5.1. Root element 239 The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposits is 240 . This element contains the following child elements: 241 watermark, deletes and contents. This element also contains the 242 following attributes: 244 o A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of 245 deposit: FULL, INCR (Incremental) or DIFF (Differential). 247 o A REQUIRED "id" attribute that is used to uniquely identify the 248 escrow deposit. Each registry is responsible for maintaining its 249 own escrow deposits identifier space to ensure uniqueness, e.g., 250 using identifiers as described in Section 2.8 of [RFC5730]. 252 o An OPTIONAL "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the 253 previous incremental, differential or full escrow deposit. This 254 attribute MUST be used in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type). 256 o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the 257 escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving 258 party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the 259 Registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is 260 generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0". If a 261 deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to 262 "1", and so on. 264 Example of root element object: 266 267 272 2010-10-18T00:00:00Z 273 274 ... 275 276 277 ... 278 279 281 5.2. Child element 283 A REQUIRED element contains the data-time corresponding 284 to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. 286 Example of element object: 288 289 294 2010-10-18T00:00:00Z 295 ... 296 298 5.3. Child element 300 This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow 301 deposit. 303 A REQUIRED element contains the following child elements: 305 o A REQUIRED element that identifies the RDE protocol 306 version. 308 o One or more elements that contain namespace URIs 309 representing the and element objects. 311 Example of element object: 313 314 318 1.0 319 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeContact-1.0 320 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeHost-1.0 321 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeDomain-1.0 322 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeRegistrar-1.0 323 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeIDN-1.0 324 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeNNDN-1.0 325 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeEppParams-1.0 326 327 ... 328 330 5.4. Child element 332 This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or 333 Differential. It contains the list of objects that were deleted 334 since the base previous deposit. Each object in this section SHALL 335 contain an ID for the object deleted. 337 This section of the deposit SHOULD NOT be present in Full deposits. 338 When rebuilding a registry it SHOULD be ignored if present in a Full 339 deposit. 341 The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the 342 identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted. 344 Example of element object: 346 347 351 352 foo.test 353 bar.test 354 355 356 sh8013-TEST 357 co8013-TEST 358 359 360 ... 361 363 5.5. Child element 365 This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit. It 366 MUST be present in all type of deposits. It contains the data for 367 the objects to be escrowed. The actual objects have to be specified 368 individually. 370 In the case of Incremental or Differential deposits, the objects 371 indicate whether the object was added or modified after the base 372 previous deposit. In order to distinguish between one and the other, 373 it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in 374 the base previous deposit. 376 When applying Incremental or Differential deposits (when rebuilding 377 the registry from data escrow deposits) the relative order of the 378 elements is important, as is the relative order of the 379 elements. All the elements MUST be applied 380 first, in the order that they appear. All the elements 381 MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. 383 If an object is present in the section of several Deposits 384 (e.g. Full and Differential) the registry data from the latest 385 Deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be used when 386 rebuilding the registry. 388 Example of element object: 390 391 395 ... 396 397 398 Object1 specific. 399 ... 400 401 402 Object2 specific. 403 ... 404 405 406 ... 407 408 ... 409 411 6. Formal Syntax 413 6.1. RDE Schema 415 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors 416 of the code. All rights reserved. 418 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 419 modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions 420 are met: 422 o Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 423 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 425 o Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 426 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in 427 the documentation and/or other materials provided with the 428 distribution. 430 o Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the 431 names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote 432 products derived from this software without specific prior written 433 permission. 435 THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 436 "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT 437 LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR 438 A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT 439 OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 440 SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT 441 LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, 442 DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY 443 THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT 444 (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE 445 OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 447 BEGIN 448 449 455 456 457 Registry Data Escrow schema 458 459 461 463 464 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 487 488 489 490 491 492 494 495 496 497 498 499 501 502 503 504 505 506 508 509 510 511 512 513 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 524 525 526 527 528 529 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 END 549 7. Internationalization Considerations 551 Data Escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native 552 support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and 553 its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML 554 processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes 555 provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use 556 of an "encoding" attribute in an declaration, use of UTF-8 is 557 RECOMMENDED. 559 8. IANA Considerations 561 This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas 562 conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI 563 assignments have been registered by the IANA. 565 Registration request for the RDE namespace: 567 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0 569 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 570 document. 572 XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. 574 Registration request for the RDE XML schema: 576 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0 578 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 579 document. 581 See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document. 583 9. Implementation Status 585 Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 586 RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. 588 This section records the status of known implementations of the 589 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 590 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 591 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 592 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 593 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 594 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 595 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 596 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 597 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 598 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 599 other implementations may exist. 601 According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and 602 working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the 603 benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable 604 experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols 605 more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this 606 information as they see fit". 608 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space 610 Organization: ICANN 612 Name: ICANN Registry Agreement 614 Description: the ICANN Base Registry Agreement requires Registries, 615 Data Escrow Agents, and ICANN to implement this specification. ICANN 616 receives daily notifications from Data Escrow Agents confirming that 617 more than 1,200 gTLDs are sending deposits that comply with this 618 specification. ICANN receives on a weekly basis per gTLD, from more 619 than 1,200 gTLD registries, a Bulk Registration Data Access file that 620 also complies with this specification. In addition, ICANN is aware 621 of Registry Service Provider transitions using data files that 622 conform to this specification. 624 Level of maturity: production. 626 Coverage: all aspects of this specification are implemented. 628 Version compatibility: versions 03 - 08 are known to be implemented. 630 Contact: gustavo.lozano@icann.org 632 URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries- 633 agreements-en 635 10. Security Considerations 637 This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used 638 in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only 639 specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a 640 Registry from deposits without intervention from the original 641 Registry. 643 Depending on local policies, some elements or most likely, the whole 644 deposit will be considered confidential. As such the Registry 645 transmitting the data to the Escrow Agent must take all the necessary 646 precautions like encrypting the data itself and/or the transport 647 channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data. 649 Mutual authentication of both parties passing data escrow deposit 650 files is of the utmost importance. The Escrow Agent should properly 651 authenticate the identity of the Registry before accepting data 652 escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the Registry should 653 authenticate the identity of the Escrow Agent before submitting any 654 data. 656 Additionally, the Registry and the Escrow Agent should use integrity 657 checking mechanisms to ensure the data transmitted is what the source 658 intended. It is recommended that specifications defining format and 659 semantics for particular business models define an algorithm that 660 Escrow Agents and Third-Party Beneficiaries could use to validate the 661 contents of the data escrow deposit. 663 11. Acknowledgments 665 Special suggestions that have been incorporated into this document 666 were provided by James Gould, Edward Lewis, Jaap Akkerhuis, Lawrence 667 Conroy, Marc Groeneweg, Michael Young, Chris Wright, Patrick Mevzek, 668 Stephen Morris, Scott Hollenbeck, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Warren Kumari, 669 Paul Hoffman, Vika Mpisane, Bernie Hoeneisen, Jim Galvin, Andrew 670 Sullivan, Hiro Hotta, Christopher Browne, Daniel Kalchev, David 671 Conrad, James Mitchell, Francisco Obispo, Bhadresh Modi and Alexander 672 Mayrhofer. 674 Shoji Noguchi and Francisco Arias participated as co-authors until 675 version 07 providing invaluable support for this document. 677 12. Change History 679 12.1. Changes from version 00 to 01 681 1. Included DNSSEC elements as part of the basic element 682 as defined in RFC 5910. 684 2. Included RGP elements as part of the basic element as 685 defined in RFC 3915. 687 3. Added support for IDNs and IDN variants. 689 4. Eliminated the element and all its subordinate 690 objects, except . 692 5. Renamed to and included it directly 693 under root element. 695 6. Renamed root element to . 697 7. Added element under element. 699 8. Added element under element. 701 9. Reversed the order of the and elements. 703 10. Removed minOccurs="0". 705 11. Added element under root element. 707 12. Added element under element. 709 13. Removed element from element. 711 14. Populated the "Security Considerations" section. 713 15. Populated the "Internationalization Considerations" section. 715 16. Populated the "Extension Example" section. 717 17. Added element under element. 719 18. Added element under element. 721 19. Added element under root element. 723 20. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 725 12.2. Changes from version 01 to 02 727 1. Added definition for "canonical" in the "IDN variants Handling" 728 section. 730 2. Clarified that "blocked" and "reserved" IDN variants are 731 optional. 733 3. Made optional. 735 4. Introduced substitutionGroup as the mechanism for extending the 736 protocol. 738 5. Moved element to be child of 740 6. Text improvements in the Introduction, Terminology, and Problem 741 Scope per Jay's suggestion. 743 7. Removed from and added instead, 744 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 745 transfer request 747 8. Removed from and added instead, 748 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 749 transfer request 751 9. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 753 12.3. Changes from version 02 to 03 755 1. Separated domain name objects from protocol. 757 2. Moved elements to be child of and 758 , additionally removed element from 759 ,, , and 760 elements. 762 3. Modified the definition of and . 764 4. Added element under element. 766 5. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 768 12.4. Changes from version 03 to 04 770 1. Removed objects. 772 2. Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section. 774 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 776 12.5. Changes from version 04 to 05 778 1. Fixes to the XSD 780 2. Extension Guidelines moved to dnrd-mappings draft 782 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 784 12.6. Changes from version 05 to 06 786 1. Fix resend definition. 788 12.7. Changes from version 06 to 07 790 1. Editorial updates. 792 2. schemaLocation removed from RDE Schema. 794 12.8. Changes from version 07 to 08 796 1. Ping update 798 12.9. Changes from version 08 to 09 800 1. Ping update. 802 12.10. Changes from version 09 to 10 804 1. Implementation Status section was added 806 13. References 808 13.1. Normative References 810 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 811 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 812 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 813 . 815 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 816 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 817 . 819 13.2. Informative References 821 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 822 DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, 823 . 825 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", 826 STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, 827 . 829 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 830 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 831 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 832 . 834 Author's Address 836 Gustavo Lozano 837 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 838 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 839 Los Angeles 90292 840 United States of America 842 Phone: +1.310.823.9358 843 Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org