Re: [regext] [Ext] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Fri, 08 May 2020 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883F53A0E8E; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S3y0ljg6qVhp; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C5443A0E91; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 048K67XV005502; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:06:07 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu 048K67XV005502
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1588968367; bh=k2aZMVNJo1n5rmUXm/MOlGKK0w0gK83fFMpOB5UTtw0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rl8bFiXw0ZwIA/gwrwkWtggoH7nLDhsQm4uxg+crFK3tWSPikaKpXqMVsaaBAqFaD hnvPAz3OlOsnixWOd1/aXlPdGb2ySk9NjTdMAk2wqpZt390LTFQcdRkLgLfXGjLFVR 7AJITRWpm8E1DRyCcHxnEKUjTWNibZ6cHgDGPm8Q=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 048K637S024883; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:06:03 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (10.64.28.249) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:06:03 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1847.3; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:06:02 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%22]) with mapi id 15.01.1847.007; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:06:02 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "regext-chairs@ietf.org" <regext-chairs@ietf.org>, James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHV9ZnweucuB9mkNkuRtjJzIeea46htEeMAgDHoXAA=
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 20:06:02 +0000
Message-ID: <da86e0d950e4413c83fd644a5125bdd9@cert.org>
References: <158370695225.6735.13200718369022557320@ietfa.amsl.com> <D83A99EB-B5D6-4C8B-B082-F7AC7DEA9448@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <D83A99EB-B5D6-4C8B-B082-F7AC7DEA9448@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.202.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/B3QTxUCWUE4R_QharAQlA3041j0>
Subject: Re: [regext] [Ext] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 20:06:34 -0000

Hi Gustavo!

Details inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 5:48 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>rg>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: regext-chairs@ietf.org; James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>om>;
> regext@ietf.org; draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ext] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Thank you Roman,
> 
> Comments inline prefixed with GL-.
> 
> Regards,
> Gustavo
> 
> On 3/8/20, 15:35, "Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>     Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05: Discuss
> 
>     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>     introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
>     Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-
> 2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5
> cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-
> 0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=mZiY3vrtmE8jDSOwutDwyVp05-
> t7_L16WP_03hPCzqg&s=P9KLpSAcMUTfkhs5glpoL88QP9Ldd32tUFnepFguGWk
> &e=
>     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dregext-2Ddata-
> 2Descrow_&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&
> r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-
> 0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=mZiY3vrtmE8jDSOwutDwyVp05-
> t7_L16WP_03hPCzqg&s=7K3FKE9852x_hU-
> eH090G1p9WbPh98ULLL0ZfDm8Xcc&e=
> 
> 
> 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     DISCUSS:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     ** Section 6.1.  Please provide a normative reference to XML Schema.
> 
> GL- Added in version 06 of the draft, here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-06.txt

I see the newly added normative references of [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] and [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] in -08.  Thanks for that.  The remaining simple edit would be to actually reference these somewhere in the text.  Right now these are just listed as references.

>     ** Section 6.1. The schema defines types “clIDType” and “rrType” but their
> use
>     isn’t explained in the text and they don’t appear to be used in the definition
>     of <deposit>.
> 
> GL- The elements are used in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-
> objects-mapping. The elements are in the schema for backward compatibility.
> There is a comment in the schema explaining that these are auxiliary elements.

-08 cleaned this up.  Thank you.

>     ** Section 11.  Was a requirement to secure the deposit data at rest
>     considered?  The text here suggests that such details needed to be worked
> out
>     individually.  However, Section 9 notes that the whole deposit is likely to be
>     confidential.  It would seem best practice to store such sensitive information
>     encrypted.
> 
> GL- The draft describes a format used to interchange information, and it's for
> the parties to establish the security requirements based on the particular use
> case. In the gTLD space, legal agreements mandate the security requirements.
> There are use-cases that may not require any security mechanism at transit
> and/or rest. For example, a deposit that contains the same information
> available in the public DNS.

Understood.  Thanks for the edits in Section 11.  However, I was primarily looking for symmetry with the following text "As such, the registry transmitting the data to the escrow agent SHOULD take all the necessary precautions ..."  This text provides a normative SHOULD about transport security.  The text should provide a similar SHOULD about storing any confidential data in deposits in an encrypted format at rest.

>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     ** I didn’t follow how this draft fits with EPP or RDAP per the REGEXT
> charter
>     (and neither of these protocols are references).
> 
> GL- I think that the following text of the charter covers this draft:
> 
> The working group may also take on work to develop specifications that
> describe the following types of information exchanged between entities
> involved in Internet identifier registration that are using the RDAP or EPP
> protocols:
> 
> ...
> 
> * Data formats for files exchanged between registration entities that need
> insertion in or extraction from EPP or RDAP.
> 
> ...
> 
>     ** Section 5.1. @resend.  How does the registry know the escrow deposit
> failed
>     to increment this attribute and resend?
> 
> GL- The draft describes a format used to interchange information, and it's for
> the parties (i.e., escrow agent and client) to define the signaling mechanisms
> for their particular implementation.

Understood.  There is an expectation of a signaling protocol.  It might be worth mention that and noting that the associated details are out of scope.

>     ** Section 5.1.2.  <version>.  The schema indicates that this should be set to
>     1.0, but this isn’t said in the text.
> 
> GL- Added in version 06 of the draft, here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-06.txt

Thanks.

>  How should an implementation process a
>     version number it doesn’t recognize?
> 
> GL- The parties shall define this for their particular use-case.
> 
> 
>     ** Section 10.  Per “As such, the registry transmitting the data to the escrow
>     agent _should_ take all the necessary precautions …”, why isn’t this a
> “_MUST_
>     take all necessary precautions …”?  Under what circumstances would
> transport
>     security not be desirable?
> 
> GL- "should" replaced with SHOULD in version 06 of the draft, here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-06.txt

Thanks.

Regards,
Roman