Thank you Roman, Comments inline prefixed in GL-
Regards, Gustavo On 5/8/20, 13:06, "Roman Danyliw" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Gustavo! Details inline ... > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 5:48 PM > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; James Gould <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > 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" <[email protected]> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dregext-2Ddata-2Descrow-2D06.txt&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=Uad6XeFSCKunJd3kwxQn_LM4Uops92_q7II97J3IZK8&s=5VVmTq-uX52GxxToLwgOSAom3q2rFGbbO1Yquy6M048&e= 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. GL - I thought that I added the text in version 08, but it was not the case. Updated in version 09. See, https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-09 > ** 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dregext-2Ddnrd-2D&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=Uad6XeFSCKunJd3kwxQn_LM4Uops92_q7II97J3IZK8&s=yf_62BCuiq4VQOB1baYX-ZaVUAonuwbn0fV86LpbwV8&e= > 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. GL - Updated in version 09. See, https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-09 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. GL - Updated in version 09. See, https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-09 > ** 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dregext-2Ddata-2Descrow-2D06.txt&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=Uad6XeFSCKunJd3kwxQn_LM4Uops92_q7II97J3IZK8&s=5VVmTq-uX52GxxToLwgOSAom3q2rFGbbO1Yquy6M048&e= 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dregext-2Ddata-2Descrow-2D06.txt&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=VbweciUcwYQpIOZDSxl0ezGd1hGDtd-0BvgAgfmwfE0&m=Uad6XeFSCKunJd3kwxQn_LM4Uops92_q7II97J3IZK8&s=5VVmTq-uX52GxxToLwgOSAom3q2rFGbbO1Yquy6M048&e= Thanks. Regards, Roman _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
