Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Scott Hollenbeck , Andy Newton | ||
| Last updated | 2016-11-22 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag, RFC 8521 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-01
Registration Protocols Extensions S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft Verisign Labs
Updates: 7484 (if approved) A. Newton
Intended status: Best Current Practice ARIN
Expires: May 25, 2017 November 21, 2016
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-01
Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that
can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing
domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries. The
method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for
processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries. This
limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query
types are typically unstructured. This document describes an
operational practice that can be used to add structure to RDAP
identifiers that makes it possible to identify the authoritative
server for additional RDAP queries.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . . . 7
3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method
([RFC7484]) that can be used to identify the authoritative server for
processing domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number
(ASN) queries. This method works because each of these data elements
is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the
element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP
service provider. For example, domain names include labels (such as
"com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service
providers.
As noted in Section 9 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484], the method does not
describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing
entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using
certain search patterns. This limitation exists because the
identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a
way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific
service provider. This document describes an operational practice
that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers that makes it
possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP
queries.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
2. Object Naming Practice
Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it
possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP
query using the method described in RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. A service
provider tag is constructed by concatenating the Unicode COMMERCIAL
AT character '@' (U+0040) to an IANA-registered value that represents
the service provider. For example, a tag for a service provider
identified by the string value "ARIN" is represented as "@ARIN".
Service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP query
object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative server
for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from
Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], an RDAP entity handle can be
constructed that allows an RDAP client to bootstrap an entity query.
The following identifier is used to find information for the entity
associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN":
XXXX@ARIN
Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this
identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier
elements. Handles can themselves contain COMMERCIAL AT characters;
the service provider identifier is found following the last (reading
from left to right) COMMERCIAL AT character in the tagged identifier.
The service provider identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL
from an IANA registry. The base URL and entity handle are then used
to form a complete RDAP query path segment. For example, if the base
RDAP URL "https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service
provider "YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a
tagged entity identifier "XXXX@YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX")
and service provider ("YYYY") identifiers. The service provider
identifier "YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the
base RDAP URL "https://example.com/rdap/". The base RDAP URL is
concatenated to the entity handle to create a complete RDAP query
path segment of "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX@YYYY".
Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured
potential query identifiers in RDAP responses. Consider these elided
examples from Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle
identifiers have been tagged with a service provider tag:
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX@RIR",
"ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"nameservers" :
[
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
...
],
"secureDNS":
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX@RIR",
"vcardArray":
[
...
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"network" :
{
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXXX@RIR",
"startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
"ipVersion" : "v4",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country" : "AU",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY@RIR",
"status" : [ "active" ]
}
}
Figure 1
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX@DNR",
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example",
"variants" :
[
...
],
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
"publicIds":
[
...
],
"nameservers" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX@DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX@DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
...
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX@8",
"vcardArray":
[
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
...
],
"status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
]
}
Figure 2
As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can
contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references
SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider
tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to
identify a service provider.
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers
The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is
represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484
[RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains alphanumeric
identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base
RDAP URLs, as shown in this example.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "RDAP bootstrap file for service provider allocations",
"services": [
[
["YYYY"],
[
"https://example.com/rdap/"
]
],
[
["ZZ54"],
[
"http://rdap.example.org/"
]
],
[
["1754"],
[
"https://example.net/rdap/",
"http://example.net/rdap/"
]
]
]
}
Figure 3
Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the syntax
specified in the IANA registry of Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP) Repository Identifiers [1], with one exception: identifiers
always start with a letter to avoid confusion with network handles of
the form "NET-192-0-0-0-1" that always end with a HYPHEN-MINUS
character followed by a number.
3.1. Registration Procedure
The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Provider
identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request.
Registration requests include the requested service provider
identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier)
and the base RDAP URL to be associated with the service provider
identifier.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registry
listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of
this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax
specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484].
4.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider
being registered.
o One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration.
5. Security Considerations
This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from
an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find
authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to
non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security
properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to
access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246],
which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP
are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481].
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
Harrison, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors would like to
recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) operators (AFRINIC,
APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been implementing and using
the practice of tagging handle identifiers for several years. Their
experience provided significant inspiration for the development of
this document.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
[RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
7.3. URIs
[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-repository-ids/epp-
repository-ids.xhtml#epp-repository-ids-1
Appendix A. Change Log
00: Initial version.
01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT.
Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service
provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom
Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network
example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by
Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements.
Authors' Addresses
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging November 2016
Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
USA
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Andrew Lee Newton
American Registry for Internet Numbers
PO Box 232290
Centreville, VA 20120
US
Email: andy@arin.net
URI: http://www.arin.net
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires May 25, 2017 [Page 11]