idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05.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 (Feb 28, 2020) is 1517 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 normative reference: RFC 8499 (Obsoleted by RFC 9499) Summary: 1 error (**), 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 Feb 28, 2020 5 Expires: August 31, 2020 7 Registry Data Escrow Specification 8 draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05 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 August 31, 2020. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 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 6. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 6.1. RDE Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 62 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 65 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 67 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 68 13. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 70 13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 71 13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 72 13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 74 13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 75 13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 76 13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 77 13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 78 13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 79 13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 80 13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 81 13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . 16 82 13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . 16 83 13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . 16 84 13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . 16 85 13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . 17 86 14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 87 15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 88 16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 89 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 90 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 91 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 92 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 94 1. Introduction 96 Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically 97 submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent. These 98 deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume 99 operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling 100 to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, for a 101 domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would 102 include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g., 103 names, contacts, name servers, etc. 105 The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration 106 services, for the benefit of Internet users. The beneficiaries of a 107 registry are not just those registering information there, but all 108 relying parties that need to identify the owners of objects. 110 In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is 111 a requirement for generic top-level domains and some country code 112 top-level domain managers are also currently escrowing data. There 113 is also a similar requirement for ICANN-accredited domain registrars. 115 This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent 116 of the objects being escrowed. A specification is required for each 117 type of registry/set of objects that is expected to be escrowed. 119 2. Terminology 121 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 122 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 123 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 124 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 125 capitals, as shown here. 127 Deposit. Deposits can be of three kinds: Full, Differential or 128 Incremental. For all kinds of deposits, the universe of registry 129 objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary 130 in order to offer the registry services. 132 Differential Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions 133 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 134 Full, Incremental or Differential Deposit, as the case may be. 135 Differential Deposit files will contain information from all database 136 objects that were added, modified or deleted since the previous 137 deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark. 139 Domain Name. See definition of Domain name in [RFC8499]. 141 Escrow Agent. The organization designated by the registry or the 142 third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data escrow deposits 143 from the registry. 145 Full Deposit. Contains the registry data that reflects the current 146 and complete registry database and will consist of data that reflects 147 the state of the registry as of a defined Timeline Watermark for the 148 deposit. 150 Incremental Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions 151 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 152 Full Deposit. Incremental Deposit files will contain information 153 from all database objects that were added, modified or deleted since 154 the previous Full Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline 155 Watermark. If the Timeline Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were 156 to cover the Timeline Watermark of another (Incremental or 157 Differential) Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the more recent 158 deposit MUST contain all the transactions of the earlier deposit. 160 Registrar. See definition of Registrar in [RFC8499]. 162 Registry. See definition of Registry in [RFC8499]. 164 Third-Party Beneficiary. Is the organization that, under 165 extraordinary circumstances, would receive the escrow deposits the 166 registry transferred to the escrow agent. This organization could be 167 a backup registry, registry regulator, contracting party of the 168 registry, etc. 170 Timeline Watermark. Point in time on which to base the collecting of 171 database objects for a deposit. Deposits are expected to be 172 consistent to that point in time. 174 Top-Level Domain. See definition of Top-Level Domain (TLD) in 175 [RFC8499]. 177 3. Problem Scope 179 In the past few years, the issue of registry continuity has been 180 carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. Various 181 organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business 182 continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize. 184 One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD 185 space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the continuity of 186 registry services in the extreme case of registry failure. 188 So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its 189 own specification. It is anticipated that more registries will be 190 implementing escrow especially with an increasing number of domain 191 registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue. 193 It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for 194 Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its 195 deposits. 197 While the domain name industry has been the main target for this 198 specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible. 200 Specifications covering the objects used by registration 201 organizations shall identify the format and contents of the deposits 202 a registry has to make, such that a different registry would be able 203 to rebuild the registration services of the former, without its help, 204 in a timely manner, with minimum disruption to its users. 206 Since the details of the registration services provided vary from 207 registry to registry, specifications covering the objects used by 208 registration organizations shall provide mechanisms that allow its 209 extensibility to accommodate variations and extensions of the 210 registration services. 212 Given the requirement for confidentiality and the importance of 213 accuracy of the information that is handled in order to offer 214 registration services, parties using this specification shall define 215 confidentiality and integrity mechanisms for handling the 216 registration data. 218 Specifications covering the objects used by registration 219 organizations shall not include in the specification transient 220 objects that can be recreated by the new registry, particularly those 221 of delicate confidentiality, e.g., DNSSEC KSK/ZSK private keys. 223 Details that are a matter of policy should be identified as such for 224 the benefit of the implementers. 226 Non-technical issues concerning data escrow, such as whether to 227 escrow data and under which purposes the data may be used, are 228 outside of scope of this document. 230 4. General Conventions 232 The XML namespace prefix "rde" is used for the namespace 233 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0", but implementations MUST NOT depend 234 on it; instead, they should employ a proper namespace-aware XML 235 parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents. 237 The XML namespace prefix "rdeObj1" and "rdeObj2" with the 238 corresponding namespaces "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0" and 239 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0" are used as example data escrow 240 objects. 242 4.1. Date and Time 244 Numerous fields indicate "dates", such as the creation and expiry 245 dates for objects. These fields SHALL contain timestamps indicating 246 the date and time in UTC, specified in Internet Date/Time Format (see 247 [RFC3339], Section 5.6) with the time-offset specified as "Z". 249 5. Protocol Description 251 The following is a format for data escrow deposits as produced by a 252 registry. The deposits are represented in XML. Only the format of 253 the objects deposited is defined, nothing is prescribed about the 254 method used to transfer such deposits between the registry and the 255 escrow agent or vice versa. 257 The protocol intends to be object agnostic allowing the "overload" of 258 abstract elements using the "substitutionGroup" attribute of the XML 259 Schema element to define the actual elements of an object to be 260 escrowed. 262 5.1. Root element 264 The container or root element for a Registry Data Escrow deposit is 265 . 267 The element contains the following attributes: 269 o A REQUIRED "type" attribute that is used to identify the kind of 270 deposit: FULL (Full), INCR (Incremental) or DIFF (Differential). 272 o A REQUIRED "id" attribute that is used to uniquely identify the 273 escrow deposit. Each registry is responsible for maintaining its 274 own escrow deposits' identifier space to ensure uniqueness. 276 o A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous 277 Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This attribute is 278 REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in 279 Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full 280 Deposits ("FULL" type). 282 o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the 283 escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving 284 party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the 285 registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is 286 generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0". If a 287 deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to 288 "1", and so on. 290 The element contains the following the child elements: 292 5.1.1. Child element 294 A REQUIRED element contains the data-time corresponding 295 to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. 297 5.1.2. Child element 299 This element contains auxiliary information of the data escrow 300 deposit. 302 A REQUIRED element contains the following child elements: 304 o A REQUIRED element that identifies the RDE protocol 305 version. 307 o One or more elements that contain namespace URIs 308 representing the and element objects. 310 5.1.3. Child element 312 This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or 313 Differential. It contains the list of objects that were deleted 314 since the base previous deposit. Each object in this section SHALL 315 contain an ID for the object deleted. 317 This section of the deposit MUST NOT be present in Full Deposits. 318 When rebuilding a registry it MUST be ignored if present in a Full 319 Deposit. 321 The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the 322 identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted. 324 5.1.4. Child element 326 This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit. It 327 SHOULD be present in all type of deposits. It contains the data for 328 the objects to be escrowed. The actual objects have to be specified 329 individually. 331 In the case of Incremental or Differential Deposits, the objects 332 indicate whether the object was added or modified after the base 333 previous deposit. In order to distinguish between one and the other, 334 it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in 335 the previous deposit. 337 When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding 338 the registry from data escrow deposits) the relative order of the 339 elements is important, as is the relative order of the 340 elements. All the elements MUST be applied 341 first, in the order that they appear. All the elements 342 MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. 344 If an object is present in the section of several deposits 345 (e.g. Full and Differential) the registry data from the latest 346 deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be used when 347 rebuilding the registry. 349 6. Formal Syntax 351 6.1. RDE Schema 353 BEGIN 354 355 360 361 362 Registry Data Escrow schema 363 364 366 367 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 382 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 392 393 394 395 396 397 399 400 401 402 403 404 406 407 408 409 410 411 413 414 415 416 417 418 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 429 430 431 432 433 434 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 END 462 7. Internationalization Considerations 464 Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native 465 support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and 466 its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML 467 processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes 468 provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use 469 of an "encoding" attribute in an declaration, use of UTF-8 is 470 RECOMMENDED. 472 8. IANA Considerations 474 This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas 475 conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI 476 assignments have been registered by the IANA. 478 Registration request for the RDE namespace: 480 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0 482 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 483 document. 485 XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. 487 Registration request for the RDE XML schema: 489 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0 491 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 492 document. 494 See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document. 496 9. Implementation Status 498 Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 499 RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. 501 This section records the status of known implementations of the 502 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 503 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 504 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 505 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 506 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 507 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 508 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 509 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 510 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 511 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 512 other implementations may exist. 514 According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and 515 working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the 516 benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable 517 experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols 518 more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this 519 information as they see fit". 521 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space 523 Organization: ICANN 525 Name: ICANN Registry Agreement 526 Description: the ICANN Base Registry Agreement requires Registries, 527 Data Escrow Agents, and ICANN to implement this specification. ICANN 528 receives daily notifications from Data Escrow Agents confirming that 529 more than 1,200 gTLDs are sending deposits that comply with this 530 specification. ICANN receives on a weekly basis per gTLD, from more 531 than 1,200 gTLD registries, a Bulk Registration Data Access file that 532 also complies with this specification. In addition, ICANN is aware 533 of Registry Service Provider transitions using data files that 534 conform to this specification. 536 Level of maturity: production. 538 Coverage: all aspects of this specification are implemented. 540 Version compatibility: versions 03 - 08 are known to be implemented. 542 Contact: gustavo.lozano@icann.org 544 URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries- 545 agreements-en 547 10. Security Considerations 549 This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used 550 in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only 551 specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a 552 registry from deposits without intervention from the original 553 registry. 555 Depending on local policies, some elements or, most likely, the whole 556 deposit will be considered confidential. As such, the registry 557 transmitting the data to the escrow agent should take all the 558 necessary precautions such as encrypting the data itself and/or the 559 transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data. 561 Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is 562 also of the utmost importance. The escrow agent SHOULD properly 563 authenticate the identity of the registry before accepting data 564 escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the registry SHOULD 565 authenticate the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any 566 data. 568 Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent SHOULD use integrity 569 checking mechanisms to ensure the data transmitted is what the source 570 intended. Validation of the contents by the escrow agent is 571 RECOMMENDED to ensure not only that the file was transmitted 572 correctly from the registry, but also that the contents are 573 "meaningful". 575 11. Privacy Considerations 577 This specification defines a format that may be used to escrow 578 personal data. The process of data escrow is governed by a legal 579 document agreed by the parties, and such legal document must regulate 580 the particularities regarding the protection of personal data. 582 12. Acknowledgments 584 Special suggestions that have been incorporated into this document 585 were provided by James Gould, Edward Lewis, Jaap Akkerhuis, Lawrence 586 Conroy, Marc Groeneweg, Michael Young, Chris Wright, Patrick Mevzek, 587 Stephen Morris, Scott Hollenbeck, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Warren Kumari, 588 Paul Hoffman, Vika Mpisane, Bernie Hoeneisen, Jim Galvin, Andrew 589 Sullivan, Hiro Hotta, Christopher Browne, Daniel Kalchev, David 590 Conrad, James Mitchell, Francisco Obispo, Bhadresh Modi and Alexander 591 Mayrhofer. 593 Shoji Noguchi and Francisco Arias participated as co-authors until 594 version 07 providing invaluable support for this document. 596 13. Change History 598 [[RFC Editor: Please remove this section.]] 600 13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 602 1. Included DNSSEC elements as part of the basic element 603 as defined in RFC 5910. 605 2. Included RGP elements as part of the basic element as 606 defined in RFC 3915. 608 3. Added support for IDNs and IDN variants. 610 4. Eliminated the element and all its subordinate 611 objects, except . 613 5. Renamed to and included it directly 614 under root element. 616 6. Renamed root element to . 618 7. Added element under element. 620 8. Added element under element. 622 9. Reversed the order of the and elements. 624 10. Removed minOccurs="0". 626 11. Added element under root element. 628 12. Added element under element. 630 13. Removed element from element. 632 14. Populated the "Security Considerations" section. 634 15. Populated the "Internationalization Considerations" section. 636 16. Populated the "Extension Example" section. 638 17. Added element under element. 640 18. Added element under element. 642 19. Added element under root element. 644 20. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 646 13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 648 1. Added definition for "canonical" in the "IDN variants Handling" 649 section. 651 2. Clarified that "blocked" and "reserved" IDN variants are 652 optional. 654 3. Made optional. 656 4. Introduced substitutionGroup as the mechanism for extending the 657 protocol. 659 5. Moved element to be child of . 661 6. Text improvements in the Introduction, Terminology, and Problem 662 Scope per Jay's suggestion. 664 7. Removed from and added instead, 665 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 666 transfer request. 668 8. Removed from and added instead, 669 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 670 transfer request. 672 9. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 674 13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 676 1. Separated domain name objects from protocol. 678 2. Moved elements to be child of and 679 , additionally removed element from 680 ,, , and 681 elements. 683 3. Modified the definition of and . 685 4. Added element under element. 687 5. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 689 13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 691 1. Removed objects. 693 2. Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section. 695 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 697 13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 699 1. Fixes to the XSD. 701 2. Extension Guidelines moved to dnrd-mappings draft. 703 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 705 13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 707 1. Fix resend definition. 709 13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 711 1. Editorial updates. 713 2. schemaLocation removed from RDE Schema. 715 13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 717 1. Ping update. 719 13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 721 1. Ping update. 723 13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 725 1. Implementation Status section was added. 727 13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 729 1. Ping update. 731 13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 733 1. Internet Draft (I-D) adopted by the REGEXT WG. 735 13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 737 1. Privacy consideration section was added. 739 13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 741 1. Updated the Security Considerations section to make the language 742 normative. 744 2. Updated the rde XML schema to remove the dependency with the 745 eppcom namespace reference. 747 3. Editorial updates. 749 4. Remove the reference to RFC 5730. 751 5. Added complete examples of deposits. 753 13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 755 1. The section changed from MUST to SHOULD, in order to 756 accommodate an Incremental or Differential Deposit that only 757 includes deletes. 759 2. Editorial updates. 761 13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 763 1. Moved [RFC8499] to the Normative References section. 765 13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 767 1. Changes based on the feedback provided here: 768 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ 769 UNo6YxapgjyerAYv0223zEuzjFk 771 2. The examples of deposits were moved to their own sections. 773 3. elements definition moved to section 5.1. 775 4. The DIFF example was modified to make it more representative of a 776 differential deposit. 778 14. Example of a Full Deposit 780 Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and 781 rdeObj2: 783 784 790 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 791 792 1.0 793 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 794 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 795 796 797 798 EXAMPLE 799 800 801 fsh8013-EXAMPLE 802 803 804 806 15. Example of a Differential Deposit 808 Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects 809 rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: 811 812 818 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 819 820 1.0 821 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 822 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 823 824 825 826 EXAMPLE2 827 828 829 sh8014-EXAMPLE 830 831 832 834 16. Example of a Incremental Deposit 836 Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects 837 rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: 839 840 846 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 847 848 1.0 849 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 850 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 851 852 853 854 EXAMPLE1 855 856 857 fsh8013-EXAMPLE 858 859 860 861 862 EXAMPLE2 863 864 865 sh8014-EXAMPLE 866 867 868 870 17. References 872 17.1. Normative References 874 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 875 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 876 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 877 . 879 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 880 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 881 . 883 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 884 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 885 May 2017, . 887 [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS 888 Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, 889 January 2019, . 891 17.2. 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 Author's Address 904 Gustavo Lozano 905 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 906 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 907 Los Angeles 90292 908 United States of America 910 Phone: +1.310.823.9358 911 Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org