idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-06.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 (Apr 06, 2020) is 1481 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 Apr 06, 2020 5 Expires: October 8, 2020 7 Registry Data Escrow Specification 8 draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-06 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 October 8, 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 13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06 . . . . . . 17 87 14. Example of a Full Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 88 15. Example of a Differential Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 89 16. Example of a Incremental Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 90 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 91 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 92 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 93 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 95 1. Introduction 97 Registry Data Escrow is the process by which a registry periodically 98 submits data deposits to a third-party called an escrow agent. These 99 deposits comprise the minimum data needed by a third-party to resume 100 operations if the registry cannot function and is unable or unwilling 101 to facilitate an orderly transfer of service. For example, for a 102 domain name registry or registrar, the data to be deposited would 103 include all the objects related to registered domain names, e.g., 104 names, contacts, name servers, etc. 106 The goal of data escrow is higher resiliency of registration 107 services, for the benefit of Internet users. The beneficiaries of a 108 registry are not just those registering information there, but all 109 relying parties that need to identify the owners of objects. 111 In the context of domain name registries, registration data escrow is 112 a requirement for generic top-level domains and some country code 113 top-level domain managers are also currently escrowing data. There 114 is also a similar requirement for ICANN-accredited domain registrars. 116 This document specifies a format for data escrow deposits independent 117 of the objects being escrowed. A specification is required for each 118 type of registry/set of objects that is expected to be escrowed. 120 2. Terminology 122 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 123 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 124 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 125 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 126 capitals, as shown here. 128 Deposit. Deposits can be of three kinds: Full, Differential or 129 Incremental. For all kinds of deposits, the universe of registry 130 objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary 131 in order to offer the registry services. 133 Differential Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions 134 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 135 Full, Incremental or Differential Deposit, as the case may be. 136 Differential Deposit files will contain information from all database 137 objects that were added, modified or deleted since the previous 138 deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline Watermark. 140 Domain Name. See definition of Domain name in [RFC8499]. 142 Escrow Agent. The organization designated by the registry or the 143 third-party beneficiary to receive and guard data escrow deposits 144 from the registry. 146 Full Deposit. Contains the registry data that reflects the current 147 and complete registry database and will consist of data that reflects 148 the state of the registry as of a defined Timeline Watermark for the 149 deposit. 151 Incremental Deposit. Contains data that reflects all transactions 152 involving the database that were not reflected in the last previous 153 Full Deposit. Incremental Deposit files will contain information 154 from all database objects that were added, modified or deleted since 155 the previous Full Deposit was completed as of its defined Timeline 156 Watermark. If the Timeline Watermark of an Incremental Deposit were 157 to cover the Timeline Watermark of another (Incremental or 158 Differential) Deposit since the last Full Deposit, the more recent 159 deposit MUST contain all the transactions of the earlier deposit. 161 Registrar. See definition of Registrar in [RFC8499]. 163 Registry. See definition of Registry in [RFC8499]. 165 Third-Party Beneficiary. Is the organization that, under 166 extraordinary circumstances, would receive the escrow deposits the 167 registry transferred to the escrow agent. This organization could be 168 a backup registry, registry regulator, contracting party of the 169 registry, etc. 171 Timeline Watermark. Point in time on which to base the collecting of 172 database objects for a deposit. Deposits are expected to be 173 consistent to that point in time. 175 Top-Level Domain. See definition of Top-Level Domain (TLD) in 176 [RFC8499]. 178 3. Problem Scope 180 In the past few years, the issue of registry continuity has been 181 carefully considered in the gTLD and ccTLD space. Various 182 organizations have carried out risk analyses and developed business 183 continuity plans to deal with those risks, should they materialize. 185 One of the solutions considered and used, especially in the gTLD 186 space, is Registry Data Escrow as a way to ensure the continuity of 187 registry services in the extreme case of registry failure. 189 So far, almost every registry that uses Registry Data Escrow has its 190 own specification. It is anticipated that more registries will be 191 implementing escrow especially with an increasing number of domain 192 registries coming into service, adding complexity to this issue. 194 It would seem beneficial to have a standardized specification for 195 Registry Data Escrow that can be used by any registry to submit its 196 deposits. 198 While the domain name industry has been the main target for this 199 specification, it has been designed to be as general as possible. 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 namespaces "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 . 268 The element 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 A "prevId" attribute that can be used to identify the previous 278 Incremental, Differential or Full Deposit. This attribute is 279 REQUIRED in Differential Deposits ("DIFF" type), is OPTIONAL in 280 Incremental Deposits ("INCR" type), and is not used in Full 281 Deposits ("FULL" type). 283 o An OPTIONAL "resend" attribute that is incremented each time the 284 escrow deposit failed the verification procedure at the receiving 285 party and a new escrow deposit needs to be generated by the 286 registry for that specific date. The first time a deposit is 287 generated the attribute is either omitted or MUST be "0". If a 288 deposit needs to be generated again, the attribute MUST be set to 289 "1", and so on. 291 The element contains the following the child elements: 293 5.1.1. Child element 295 A REQUIRED element contains the data-time corresponding 296 to the Timeline Watermark of the deposit. 298 5.1.2. 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, this value MUST be 1.0. 308 o One or more elements that contain namespace URIs 309 representing the and element objects. 311 5.1.3. Child element 313 This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental or 314 Differential. It contains the list of objects that were deleted 315 since the base previous deposit. Each object in this section SHALL 316 contain an ID for the object deleted. 318 This section of the deposit MUST NOT be present in Full Deposits. 319 When rebuilding a registry it MUST be ignored if present in a Full 320 Deposit. 322 The specification for each object to be escrowed MUST declare the 323 identifier to be used to reference the object to be deleted. 325 5.1.4. Child element 327 This element of the deposit contains the objects in the deposit. It 328 SHOULD be present in all type of deposits. It contains the data for 329 the objects to be escrowed. The actual objects have to be specified 330 individually. 332 In the case of Incremental or Differential Deposits, the objects 333 indicate whether the object was added or modified after the base 334 previous deposit. In order to distinguish between one and the other, 335 it will be sufficient to check existence of the referenced object in 336 the previous deposit. 338 When applying Incremental or Differential Deposits (when rebuilding 339 the registry from data escrow deposits) the relative order of the 340 elements is important, as is the relative order of the 341 elements. All the elements MUST be applied 342 first, in the order that they appear. All the elements 343 MUST be applied next, in the order that they appear. 345 If an object is present in the section of several deposits 346 (e.g. Full and Differential) the registry data from the latest 347 deposit (as defined by the Timeline Watermark) SHOULD be used when 348 rebuilding the registry. 350 6. Formal Syntax 352 6.1. RDE Schema 354 BEGIN 355 356 361 362 363 Registry Data Escrow schema 364 365 367 368 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 383 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 393 394 395 396 397 398 400 401 402 403 404 405 407 408 409 410 411 412 414 415 416 417 418 419 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 430 431 432 433 434 435 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 END 463 7. Internationalization Considerations 465 Data escrow deposits are represented in XML, which provides native 466 support for encoding information using the Unicode character set and 467 its more compact representations including UTF-8. Conformant XML 468 processors recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16. Though XML includes 469 provisions to identify and use other character encodings through use 470 of an "encoding" attribute in an declaration, use of UTF-8 is 471 RECOMMENDED. 473 8. IANA Considerations 475 This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas 476 conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Two URI 477 assignments have been registered by the IANA. 479 Registration request for the RDE namespace: 481 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0 483 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 484 document. 486 XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. 488 Registration request for the RDE XML schema: 490 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:rde-1.0 492 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this 493 document. 495 See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document. 497 9. Implementation Status 499 Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 500 RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication. 502 This section records the status of known implementations of the 503 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 504 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 505 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 506 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 507 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 508 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 509 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 510 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 511 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 512 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 513 other implementations may exist. 515 According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and 516 working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the 517 benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable 518 experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols 519 more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this 520 information as they see fit". 522 9.1. Implementation in the gTLD space 524 Organization: ICANN 526 Name: ICANN Registry Agreement 527 Description: the ICANN Base Registry Agreement requires Registries, 528 Data Escrow Agents, and ICANN to implement this specification. ICANN 529 receives daily notifications from Data Escrow Agents confirming that 530 more than 1,200 gTLDs are sending deposits that comply with this 531 specification. ICANN receives on a weekly basis per gTLD, from more 532 than 1,200 gTLD registries, a Bulk Registration Data Access file that 533 also complies with this specification. In addition, ICANN is aware 534 of Registry Service Provider transitions using data files that 535 conform to this specification. 537 Level of maturity: production. 539 Coverage: all aspects of this specification are implemented. 541 Version compatibility: versions 03 - 08 are known to be implemented. 543 Contact: gustavo.lozano@icann.org 545 URL: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries- 546 agreements-en 548 10. Security Considerations 550 This specification does not define the security mechanisms to be used 551 in the transmission of the data escrow deposits, since it only 552 specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuilding of a 553 registry from deposits without intervention from the original 554 registry. 556 Depending on local policies, some elements or, most likely, the whole 557 deposit will be considered confidential. As such, the registry 558 transmitting the data to the escrow agent SHOULD take all the 559 necessary precautions such as encrypting the data itself and/or the 560 transport channel to avoid inadvertent disclosure of private data. 562 Authentication of the parties passing data escrow deposit files is 563 also of the utmost importance. The escrow agent SHOULD properly 564 authenticate the identity of the registry before accepting data 565 escrow deposits. In a similar manner, the registry SHOULD 566 authenticate the identity of the escrow agent before submitting any 567 data. 569 Additionally, the registry and the escrow agent SHOULD use integrity 570 checking mechanisms to ensure the data transmitted is what the source 571 intended. Validation of the contents by the escrow agent is 572 RECOMMENDED to ensure not only that the file was transmitted 573 correctly from the registry, but also that the contents are 574 "meaningful". 576 11. Privacy Considerations 578 This specification defines a format that may be used to escrow 579 personal data. The process of data escrow is governed by a legal 580 document agreed by the parties, and such legal document must regulate 581 the particularities regarding the protection of personal data. 583 12. Acknowledgments 585 Special suggestions that have been incorporated into this document 586 were provided by James Gould, Edward Lewis, Jaap Akkerhuis, Lawrence 587 Conroy, Marc Groeneweg, Michael Young, Chris Wright, Patrick Mevzek, 588 Stephen Morris, Scott Hollenbeck, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Warren Kumari, 589 Paul Hoffman, Vika Mpisane, Bernie Hoeneisen, Jim Galvin, Andrew 590 Sullivan, Hiro Hotta, Christopher Browne, Daniel Kalchev, David 591 Conrad, James Mitchell, Francisco Obispo, Bhadresh Modi and Alexander 592 Mayrhofer. 594 Shoji Noguchi and Francisco Arias participated as co-authors until 595 version 07 providing invaluable support for this document. 597 13. Change History 599 [[RFC Editor: Please remove this section.]] 601 13.1. Changes from 00 to 01 603 1. Included DNSSEC elements as part of the basic element 604 as defined in RFC 5910. 606 2. Included RGP elements as part of the basic element as 607 defined in RFC 3915. 609 3. Added support for IDNs and IDN variants. 611 4. Eliminated the element and all its subordinate 612 objects, except . 614 5. Renamed to and included it directly 615 under root element. 617 6. Renamed root element to . 619 7. Added element under element. 621 8. Added element under element. 623 9. Reversed the order of the and elements. 625 10. Removed minOccurs="0". 627 11. Added element under root element. 629 12. Added element under element. 631 13. Removed element from element. 633 14. Populated the "Security Considerations" section. 635 15. Populated the "Internationalization Considerations" section. 637 16. Populated the "Extension Example" section. 639 17. Added element under element. 641 18. Added element under element. 643 19. Added element under root element. 645 20. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 647 13.2. Changes from 01 to 02 649 1. Added definition for "canonical" in the "IDN variants Handling" 650 section. 652 2. Clarified that "blocked" and "reserved" IDN variants are 653 optional. 655 3. Made optional. 657 4. Introduced substitutionGroup as the mechanism for extending the 658 protocol. 660 5. Moved element to be child of . 662 6. Text improvements in the Introduction, Terminology, and Problem 663 Scope per Jay's suggestion. 665 7. Removed from and added instead, 666 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 667 transfer request. 669 8. Removed from and added instead, 670 which include all the data from the last (pending/processed) 671 transfer request. 673 9. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 675 13.3. Changes from 02 to 03 677 1. Separated domain name objects from protocol. 679 2. Moved elements to be child of and 680 , additionally removed element from 681 ,, , and 682 elements. 684 3. Modified the definition of and . 686 4. Added element under element. 688 5. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 690 13.4. Changes from 03 to 04 692 1. Removed objects. 694 2. Populated the "Extension Guidelines" section. 696 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 698 13.5. Changes from 04 to 05 700 1. Fixes to the XSD. 702 2. Extension Guidelines moved to dnrd-mappings draft. 704 3. Fixed some typographical errors and omissions. 706 13.6. Changes from 05 to 06 708 1. Fix resend definition. 710 13.7. Changes from 06 to 07 712 1. Editorial updates. 714 2. schemaLocation removed from RDE Schema. 716 13.8. Changes from 07 to 08 718 1. Ping update. 720 13.9. Changes from 08 to 09 722 1. Ping update. 724 13.10. Changes from 09 to 10 726 1. Implementation Status section was added. 728 13.11. Changes from 10 to 11 730 1. Ping update. 732 13.12. Changes from 11 to REGEXT 00 734 1. Internet Draft (I-D) adopted by the REGEXT WG. 736 13.13. Changes from version REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 738 1. Privacy consideration section was added. 740 13.14. Changes from version REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 742 1. Updated the Security Considerations section to make the language 743 normative. 745 2. Updated the rde XML schema to remove the dependency with the 746 eppcom namespace reference. 748 3. Editorial updates. 750 4. Remove the reference to RFC 5730. 752 5. Added complete examples of deposits. 754 13.15. Changes from version REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 756 1. The section changed from MUST to SHOULD, in order to 757 accommodate an Incremental or Differential Deposit that only 758 includes deletes. 760 2. Editorial updates. 762 13.16. Changes from version REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 764 1. Moved [RFC8499] to the Normative References section. 766 13.17. Changes from version REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 768 1. Changes based on the feedback provided here: 769 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ 770 UNo6YxapgjyerAYv0223zEuzjFk 772 2. The examples of deposits were moved to their own sections. 774 3. elements definition moved to section 5.1. 776 4. The DIFF example was modified to make it more representative of a 777 differential deposit. 779 13.18. Changes from version REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06 781 1. Normative references for XLM, XML Schema added. 783 2. Text added to define that version MUST be 1.0. 785 3. Normative SHOULD replaced should in the second paragraph in the 786 security section. 788 14. Example of a Full Deposit 790 Example of a Full Deposit with the two example objects rdeObj1 and 791 rdeObj2: 793 794 800 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 801 802 1.0 803 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 804 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 805 806 807 808 EXAMPLE 809 810 811 fsh8013-EXAMPLE 812 813 814 816 15. Example of a Differential Deposit 818 Example of a Differential Deposit with the two example objects 819 rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: 821 822 828 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 829 830 1.0 831 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 832 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 833 834 835 836 EXAMPLE2 837 838 839 sh8014-EXAMPLE 840 841 842 844 16. Example of a Incremental Deposit 846 Example of an Incremental Deposit with the two example objects 847 rdeObj1 and rdeObj2: 849 850 856 2019-10-18T00:00:00Z 857 858 1.0 859 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj1-1.0 860 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdeObj2-1.0 861 862 863 864 EXAMPLE1 865 866 867 fsh8013-EXAMPLE 868 869 870 871 872 EXAMPLE2 873 874 875 sh8014-EXAMPLE 876 877 878 880 17. References 882 17.1. Normative References 884 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 885 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 886 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 887 . 889 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 890 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 891 . 893 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 894 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 895 May 2017, . 897 [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS 898 Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, 899 January 2019, . 901 [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] 902 Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and 903 F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth 904 Edition) REC-xml-20081126", November 2008, 905 . 907 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] 908 Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn, 909 "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition REC- 910 xmlschema-1-20041028", October 2004, 911 . 913 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] 914 Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes 915 Second Edition REC-xmlschema-2-20041028", October 2004, 916 . 918 17.2. Informative References 920 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 921 DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, 922 . 924 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 925 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 926 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 927 . 929 Author's Address 931 Gustavo Lozano 932 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 933 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 934 Los Angeles 90292 935 United States of America 937 Phone: +1.310.823.9358 938 Email: gustavo.lozano@icann.org