idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-02.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 (Nov 25, 2019) is 1614 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) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8499 (Obsoleted by RFC 9499) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). 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 Nov 25, 2019 5 Expires: May 28, 2020 7 Registry Data Escrow Specification 8 draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-02 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 May 28, 2020. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 5.1. Root element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 5.2. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 5.3. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 5.4. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 62 5.5. Child element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 66 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 67 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 68 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 69 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 70 11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 71 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 72 13. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 73 13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 75 13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 76 13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 77 13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 78 13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 79 13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 80 13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 81 13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 82 13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 83 13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 84 13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 85 13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 19 86 13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 19 87 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 88 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 89 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 90 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 92 1. Introduction 94 Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically 95 submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent. These 96 deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume 97 operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling 98 to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, for a 99 domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would 100 include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g., 101 names, contacts, name servers, etc. 103 The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration 104 services, for the benefit of Internet users. The beneficiaries of a 105 registry are not just those registering information there, but all 106 relying parties that need to identify the owners of objects. 108 In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is 109 a requirement for generic top-level domains and some country code 110 top-level domain managers are also currently escrowing data. There 111 is also a similar requirement for ICANN-accredited domain registrars. 113 This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent 114 of the objects being escrowed. A specification is required for each 115 type of registry/set of objects that is expected to be escrowed. 117 2. Terminology 119 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 120 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 121 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 122 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 123 capitals, as shown here. 125 Deposit. Deposits can be of three kinds: Full, Differential or 126 Incremental. For all kinds of deposits, the universe of registry 127 objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary 128 in order to offer the registry services. 130 Differential Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions 131 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 132 Full, Incremental or Differential Deposit, as the case may be. 133 Differential Deposit files will contain information from all database 134 objects that were added, modified or deleted since the previous 135 deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark. 137 Domain Name. See definition of Domain name in [RFC8499]. 139 Escrow Agent. The organization designated by the registry or the 140 third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data escrow deposits 141 from the registry. 143 Full Deposit. Contains the registry data that reflects the current 144 and complete registry database and will consist of data that reflects 145 the state of the registry as of a defined Timeline Watermark for the 146 deposit. 148 Incremental Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions 149 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 150 Full Deposit. Incremental Deposit files will contain information 151 from all database objects that were added, modified or deleted since 152 the previous Full Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline 153 Watermark. If the Timeline Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were 154 to cover the Timeline Watermark of another (Incremental or 155 Differential) Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the more recent 156 deposit MUST contain all the transactions of the earlier deposit. 158 Registrar. See definition of Registrar in [RFC8499]. 160 Registry. See definition of Registry in [RFC8499]. 162 Third-Party Beneficiary. Is the organization that, under 163 extraordinary circumstances, would receive the escrow deposits the 164 registry transferred to the escrow agent. This organization could be 165 a backup registry, registry regulator, contracting party of the 166 registry, etc. 168 Timeline Watermark. Point in time on which to base the collecting of 169 database objects for a deposit. Deposits are expected to be 170 consistent to that point in time. 172 Top-Level Domain. See definition of Top-Level Domain (TLD) in 173 [RFC8499]. 175 3. Problem Scope 177 In the past few years, the issue of registry continuity has been 178 carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. Various 179 organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business 180 continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize. 182 One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD 183 space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the continuity of 184 registry services in the extreme case of registry failure. 186 So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its 187 own specification. It is anticipated that more registries will be 188 implementing escrow especially with an increasing number of domain 189 registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue. 191 It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for 192 Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its 193 deposits. 195 While the main motivation for developing this specification is rooted 196 on the domain name industry, the specification has been designed to 197 be as general as possible. This allows other types of registries to 198 use this base specification and develop their own specifications 199 covering the objects used by other registration organizations. 201 Specifications covering the objects used by registration 202 organizations shall identify the format and contents of the deposits 203 a registry has to make, such that a different registry would be able 204 to rebuild the registration services of the former, without its help, 205 in a timely manner, with minimum disruption to its users. 207 Since the details of the registration services provided vary from 208 registry to registry, specifications covering the objects used by 209 registration organizations shall provide mechanisms that allow its 210 extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of the 211 registration services. 213 Given the requirement for confidentiality and the importance of 214 accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer 215 registration services, parties using this specification shall define 216 confidentiality and integrity mechanisms for handling the 217 registration data. 219 Specifications covering the objects used by registration 220 organizations shall not include in the specification transient 221 objects that can be recreated by the new registry, particularly those 222 of delicate confidentiality, e.g., DNSSEC KSK/ZSK private keys. 224 Details that are a matter of policy should be identified as such for 225 the benefit of the implementers. 227 Non-technical issues concerning data escrow, such as whether to 228 escrow data and under which purposes the data may be used, are 229 outside of scope of this document. 231 4. General Conventions 233 The XML namespace prefix "rde" is used for the namespace 234 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0", but implementations MUST NOT depend 235 on it; instead, they should employ a proper namespace-aware XML 236 parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents. 238 The XML namespace prefix "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" with the 239 corresponding namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and 240 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" are used as example data escrow 241 objects. 243 4.1. Date and Time 245 Numerous fields indicate "dates", such as the creation and expiry 246 dates for objects. These fields SHALL contain timestamps indicating 247 the date and time in UTC, specified in Internet Date/Time Format (see 248 [RFC3339], Section 5.6) with the time-offset specified as "Z". 250 5. Protocol Description 252 The following is a format for data escrow deposits as produced by a 253 registry. The deposits are represented in XML. Only the format of 254 the objects deposited is defined, nothing is prescribed about the 255 method used to transfer such deposits between the registry and the 256 escrow agent or vice versa. 258 The protocol intends to be object agnostic allowing the "overload" of 259 abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute of the XML 260 Schema element to define the actual elements of an object to be 261 escrowed. 263 5.1. Root element 265 The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is 266 . This element contains the following child elements: 267 , , and elements. This 268 element also contains the following attributes: 270 o A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of 271 deposit: FULL (Full), INCR (Incremental) or DIFF (Differential). 273 o A REQUIRED "id" attribute that is used to uniquely identify the 274 escrow deposit. Each registry is responsible for maintaining its 275 own escrow deposits identifier space to ensure uniqueness. 277 o An OPTIONAL "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the 278 previous Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This 279 attribute MUST be used in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type). 281 o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the 282 escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving 283 party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the 284 registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is 285 generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0". If a 286 deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to 287 "1", and so on. 289 Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and 290 rdeObj2: 292 293 299 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 300 301 1.0 302 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 303 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 304 305 306 307 EXAMPLE 308 309 310 fsh8013-EXAMPLE 311 312 313 315 Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects 316 rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: 318 319 325 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 326 327 1.0 328 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 329 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 330 331 332 333 EXAMPLE1 334 335 336 fsh8013-EXAMPLE 337 338 339 340 341 EXAMPLE2 342 343 344 sh8014-EXAMPLE 345 346 347 349 Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects 350 rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: 352 353 359 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 360 361 1.0 362 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 363 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 364 365 366 367 EXAMPLE1 368 369 370 fsh8013-EXAMPLE 371 372 373 374 375 EXAMPLE2 376 377 378 sh8014-EXAMPLE 379 380 381 383 5.2. Child element 385 A REQUIRED element contains the data-time corresponding 386 to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. 388 5.3. Child element 390 This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow 391 deposit. 393 A REQUIRED element contains the following child elements: 395 o A REQUIRED element that identifies the RDE protocol 396 version. 398 o One or more elements that contain namespace URIs 399 representing the and element objects. 401 5.4. Child element 403 This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or 404 Differential. It contains the list of objects that were deleted 405 since the base previous deposit. Each object in this section SHALL 406 contain an ID for the object deleted. 408 This section of the deposit SHOULD NOT be present in Full Deposits. 409 When rebuilding a registry it SHOULD be ignored if present in a Full 410 Deposit. 412 The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the 413 identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted. 415 5.5. Child element 417 This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit. It 418 MUST be present in all type of deposits. It contains the data for 419 the objects to be escrowed. The actual objects have to be specified 420 individually. 422 In the case of Incremental or Differential Deposits, the objects 423 indicate whether the object was added or modified after the base 424 previous deposit. In order to distinguish between one and the other, 425 it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in 426 the previous deposit. 428 When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding 429 the registry from data escrow deposits) the relative order of the 430 elements is important, as is the relative order of the 431 elements. All the elements MUST be applied 432 first, in the order that they appear. All the elements 433 MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. 435 If an object is present in the section of several deposits 436 (e.g. Full and Differential) the registry data from the latest 437 deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be used when 438 rebuilding the registry. 440 6. Formal Syntax 442 6.1. RDE Schema 444 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors 445 of the code. All rights reserved. 447 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 448 modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions 449 are met: 451 o Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 452 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 454 o Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 455 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in 456 the documentation and/or other materials provided with the 457 distribution. 459 o Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the 460 names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote 461 products derived from this software without specific prior written 462 permission. 464 THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 465 "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT 466 LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR 467 A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT 468 OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 469 SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT 470 LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, 471 DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY 472 THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT 473 (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE 474 OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 476 BEGIN 477 478 483 484 485 Registry Data Escrow schema 486 487 489 490 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 514 515 516 517 518 519 521 522 523 524 525 526 528 529 530 531 532 533 535 536 537 538 539 540 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 551 552 553 554 555 556 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 END 584 7. Internationalization Considerations 586 Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native 587 support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and 588 its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML 589 processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes 590 provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use 591 of an "encoding" attribute in an declaration, use of UTF-8 is 592 RECOMMENDED. 594 8. IANA Considerations 596 This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas 597 conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI 598 assignments have been registered by the IANA. 600 Registration request for the RDE namespace: 602 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0 604 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 605 document. 607 XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. 609 Registration request for the RDE XML schema: 611 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0 613 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 614 document. 616 See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document. 618 9. Implementation Status 620 Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 621 RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. 623 This section records the status of known implementations of the 624 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 625 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 626 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 627 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 628 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 629 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 630 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 631 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 632 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 633 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 634 other implementations may exist. 636 According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and 637 working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the 638 benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable 639 experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols 640 more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this 641 information as they see fit". 643 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space 645 Organization: ICANN 647 Name: ICANN Registry Agreement 649 Description: the ICANN Base Registry Agreement requires Registries, 650 Data Escrow Agents, and ICANN to implement this specification. ICANN 651 receives daily notifications from Data Escrow Agents confirming that 652 more than 1,200 gTLDs are sending deposits that comply with this 653 specification. ICANN receives on a weekly basis per gTLD, from more 654 than 1,200 gTLD registries, a Bulk Registration Data Access file that 655 also complies with this specification. In addition, ICANN is aware 656 of Registry Service Provider transitions using data files that 657 conform to this specification. 659 Level of maturity: production. 661 Coverage: all aspects of this specification are implemented. 663 Version compatibility: versions 03 - 08 are known to be implemented. 665 Contact: gustavo.lozano@icann.org 667 URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries- 668 agreements-en 670 10. Security Considerations 672 This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used 673 in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only 674 specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a 675 registry from deposits without intervention from the original 676 registry. 678 Depending on local policies, some elements or most likely, the whole 679 deposit will be considered confidential. As such the registry 680 transmitting the data to the escrow agent SHOULD take all the 681 necessary precautions like encrypting the data itself and/or the 682 transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data. 684 It is also of the utmost importance the authentication of the parties 685 passing data escrow deposit files. The escrow agent SHOULD properly 686 authenticate the identity of the registry before accepting data 687 escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the registry SHOULD 688 authenticate the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any 689 data. 691 Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent SHOULD use integrity 692 checking mechanisms to ensure the data transmitted is what the source 693 intended. Validation of the contents by the escrow agent is 694 RECOMMENDED to ensure not only the file was transmitted correctly 695 from the registry, but also the contents are also "meaningful". 697 11. Privacy Considerations 699 This specification defines a format that may be used to escrow 700 personal data. The process of data escrow is governed by a legal 701 document agreed by the parties, and such legal document must regulate 702 the particularities regarding the protection of personal data. 704 12. Acknowledgments 706 Special suggestions that have been incorporated into this document 707 were provided by James Gould, Edward Lewis, Jaap Akkerhuis, Lawrence 708 Conroy, Marc Groeneweg, Michael Young, Chris Wright, Patrick Mevzek, 709 Stephen Morris, Scott Hollenbeck, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Warren Kumari, 710 Paul Hoffman, Vika Mpisane, Bernie Hoeneisen, Jim Galvin, Andrew 711 Sullivan, Hiro Hotta, Christopher Browne, Daniel Kalchev, David 712 Conrad, James Mitchell, Francisco Obispo, Bhadresh Modi and Alexander 713 Mayrhofer. 715 Shoji Noguchi and Francisco Arias participated as co-authors until 716 version 07 providing invaluable support for this document. 718 13. Change History 720 [[RFC Editor: Please remove this section.]] 722 13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 724 1. Included DNSSEC elements as part of the basic element 725 as defined in RFC 5910. 727 2. Included RGP elements as part of the basic element as 728 defined in RFC 3915. 730 3. Added support for IDNs and IDN variants. 732 4. Eliminated the element and all its subordinate 733 objects, except . 735 5. Renamed to and included it directly 736 under root element. 738 6. Renamed root element to . 740 7. Added element under element. 742 8. Added element under element. 744 9. Reversed the order of the and elements. 746 10. Removed minOccurs="0". 748 11. Added element under root element. 750 12. Added element under element. 752 13. Removed element from element. 754 14. Populated the "Security Considerations" section. 756 15. Populated the "Internationalization Considerations" section. 758 16. Populated the "Extension Example" section. 760 17. Added element under element. 762 18. Added element under element. 764 19. Added element under root element. 766 20. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 768 13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 770 1. Added definition for "canonical" in the "IDN variants Handling" 771 section. 773 2. Clarified that "blocked" and "reserved" IDN variants are 774 optional. 776 3. Made optional. 778 4. Introduced substitutionGroup as the mechanism for extending the 779 protocol. 781 5. Moved element to be child of 782 6. Text improvements in the Introduction, Terminology, and Problem 783 Scope per Jay's suggestion. 785 7. Removed from and added instead, 786 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 787 transfer request 789 8. Removed from and added instead, 790 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 791 transfer request 793 9. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 795 13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 797 1. Separated domain name objects from protocol. 799 2. Moved elements to be child of and 800 , additionally removed element from 801 ,, , and 802 elements. 804 3. Modified the definition of and . 806 4. Added element under element. 808 5. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 810 13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 812 1. Removed objects. 814 2. Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section. 816 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 818 13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 820 1. Fixes to the XSD 822 2. Extension Guidelines moved to dnrd-mappings draft 824 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 826 13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 828 1. Fix resend definition. 830 13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 832 1. Editorial updates. 834 2. schemaLocation removed from RDE Schema. 836 13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 838 1. Ping update 840 13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 842 1. Ping update. 844 13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 846 1. Implementation Status section was added 848 13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 850 1. Ping update. 852 13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 854 1. Internet Draft (I-D) adopted by the REGEXT WG. 856 13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 858 1. Privacy consideration section was added 860 13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 862 1. Updated the Security Considerations section to make the language 863 normative 865 2. Updated the rde XML schema to remove the dependency with the 866 eppcom namespace reference 868 3. Editorial updates 870 4. Remove the reference to RFC 5730 872 5. Added complete examples of deposits 874 14. References 876 14.1. Normative References 878 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 879 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 880 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 881 . 883 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 884 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 885 . 887 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 888 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 889 May 2017, . 891 14.2. Informative References 893 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 894 DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, 895 . 897 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 898 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 899 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 900 . 902 [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS 903 Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, 904 January 2019, . 906 Author's Address 908 Gustavo Lozano 909 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 910 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 911 Los Angeles 90292 912 United States of America 914 Phone: +1.310.823.9358 915 Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org