RPP Architecture
draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (rpp WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Paweł Kowalik , Maarten Wullink | ||
| Last updated | 2026-07-06 (Latest revision 2026-02-27) | ||
| Replaces | draft-kowalik-rpp-architecture | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01
RPP (RESTful Provisioning Protocol) Working Group P. Kowalik
Internet-Draft DENIC eG
Intended status: Informational M. Wullink
Expires: 31 August 2026 SIDN Labs
27 February 2026
RPP Architecture
draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-01
Abstract
Advancements in development, integration, deployment environments and
operational paradigms have led to a desire for an alternative for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP). This document defines the
architecture for the RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP) - an HTTP
based provisioning protocol leveraging the REST architectural style
and JSON data-interchange format, aiming to standardise a RESTful
protocol for provisioning database objects. The architecture
includes support for extensibility, allowing for multiple possible
use cases. RPP is intended to co-exist with EPP, offering an
alternative protocol including data model compatibility with EPP core
objects and the benefits associated with the REST architectural style
and widely adopted HTTP-based technologies.
Contributing
When contributing to this document, please use the following GitHub
project: https://github.com/ietf-wg-rpp/RPP-architecture.
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 https://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 31 August 2026.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Resource Oriented Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Architecture Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. HTTP Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Data Representation Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Resource Definition Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. HTTP Transport Layer Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. Transport Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.2. Authentication and Authorisation . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. Credential management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.4. Resource Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.5. Mapping of basic operations to HTTP uniform interface
(verbs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.6. Mapping of operations beyond HTTP uniform interface to
URLs and verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.7. Server-Managed Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.8. HTTP response status codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.9. Content negotiation for media types . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.10. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.11. Language negotiation for textual content . . . . . . 19
5.1.12. Client Signalling for Response Verbosity . . . . . . 19
5.1.13. Client Signalling for Request Validation . . . . . . 20
5.1.14. Asynchronous Operation Processing . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.15. Service Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.16. RPP specific status codes and relation to HTTP response
status codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1.17. Transaction tracing and idempotency . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.18. Message verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.1.19. Protocol Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.20. Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.21. Definition of special resources . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.22. Service discovery mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.23. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. Data Representation Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.1. Data structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.2. Data format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.3. Data Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.4. Media Type definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.5. Optionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.3. Resource Definition Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.3.1. Data Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.3.2. Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.3. Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.4. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.5. Server-Managed Resource Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.6. Data privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.4. Extension mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4.1. Layered Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4.2. Protocol Element Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4.3. IANA Registry-Based Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4.4. Compatibility and Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4.5. Name Management and Collision Avoidance . . . . . . . 33
5.4.6. Extension Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4.7. Extension Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1. -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2. -03 to draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-00 . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.3. -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.4. -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.5. -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction
This document outlines the architecture of the RESTful Provisioning
Protocol (RPP). RPP aims to provide a modern, standardised, and
developer-friendly protocol for provisioning and managing objects in
a shared database or registry, initially focusing on functional
equivalents of EPP object mappings for domain names [RFC5731], hosts
[RFC5732], and contacts [RFC5733]. RPP also considers provisioning
of other objects as a potential use case, aiming for a uniform API
layer for various registry operations.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
RPP is designed to leverage the benefits of REST (REpresentational
State Transfer), including statelessness, ease of integration, and
compatibility with existing web infrastructure and tooling such as
OpenAPI, API gateways, and web application firewalls. By adopting
JSON as the data-interchange format, RPP seeks to align with current
development practices and the successful deployment patterns observed
in protocols such as RDAP [RFC9082]. The choice of REST and JSON
also facilitates direct browser and mobile application integration
including modern security mechanisms such as OAuth2.0.
This architecture document serves as a foundation for a series of
specifications that will collectively define RPP. It details the
layered approach, core components, and design considerations for
building an interoperable and extensible provisioning protocol. RPP
is intended to coexist with EPP, offering an alternative for
implementers seeking a RESTful approach without aiming to replace EPP
or define migration paths from EPP. RPP aims for data model
compatibility with EPP core objects to allow automatic and mechanical
mapping and conversion, especially for core objects (domain, contact,
host).
2. Terminology
This document uses terminology from RFC5730 [RFC5730] and broadly
adopts the REST architectural principles as defined in [REST] and
related RFCs.
* *RPP:* RESTful Provisioning Protocol. The protocol being defined
by the RPP working group.
* *EPP:* Extensible Provisioning Protocol as defined in [RFC5730].
* *REST:* Representational State Transfer architectural style
[REST].
* *JSON:* JavaScript Object Notation [RFC8259].
* *JWT:* JSON Web Token [RFC7519].
* *OpenAPI:* The OpenAPI Specification (OAS) (formerly known as
Swagger Specification) is an API description format for REST APIs
[OpenAPI].
* *RPP client:* An entity or application that interacts with the RPP
server to perform provisioning operations, such as creating,
updating, or deleting resources.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* *EPP AuthInfo:* EPP password based Authorisation Information
defined in [RFC5731] and [RFC5733].
* *Sponsoring Client:* The RPP Client that currently has sponsorship
of the object.
* *Gaining Client:* The client seeking to gain sponsorship of the
object in a Transfer Operation.
* *IDN:* Internationalised Domain Names as defined in [RFC5890]
* *TLS:* Transport Layer Security, as defined in [RFC8446] or its
successors.
* *HTTPS:* HTTP over TLS, as defined in [RFC9110] or its successors.
3. Requirements
This document is based on the requirements defined by the RPP Working
Group as of 5 December 2025 [RPPReq].
4. Architectural Overview
This chapter provides an overview of the RPP architecture. A key
design principle is to leverage existing web standards, particularly
HTTP and REST. This allows RPP to delegate functionality and
features to the well-established infrastructure and semantics of the
web, focusing its own definitions on the specific domain of object
provisioning. Therefore, we assume:
* *HTTP and RESTful principles are foundational:* RPP leverages HTTP
for transport and adheres to RESTful principles for resource
management.
* *Domain-specific logic resides in data representations:* The
specifics of resource provisioning are encoded within the data
structures and semantics of the RPP message bodies.
* *Layered architecture for modularity:* The architecture is layered
to promote modularity, separation of concerns, and independent
evolution of different aspects of the protocol.
The architecture is divided into three main layers: *HTTP Transport*,
*Data Representation*, and *Resource Definition*. Each layer defines
specific aspects of the protocol. This layered approach allows for
clear separation of concerns.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
*Data Structure* is a sub-layer of Data Representation and described
later in this document. It focuses on the structure of RPP messages.
Similarly *Data Elements*, their *Mapping* onto Data Structure and
*Operations* are elements of Resource Definition. They focus on the
semantic structure of RPP resources and transformation of those
resources.
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| HTTP Transport |
| |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+ |
| | Data Representation | |
| | | |
| | +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ | |
| | | Data Structure |<-------+
| | | | |
| | | +-----------------------------------------+ | | | |
| | | Resource Definition | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Data | | Mapping | | | | |
| | | | | Elements |------>| |------------+
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | |
| | | | ^ | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | +--------------+ | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | Operations | | | | |
| | | +------| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | +--------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | +-----------------------------------------+ | | |
| | +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ | |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+ |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
4.1. Resource Oriented Architecture
RPP adopts a Resource Oriented Architecture (ROA), aligning with
RESTful principles. This approach defines all manageable entities as
"resources," identified by unique URLs. Operations on these
resources are performed through a uniform interface using the
standard HTTP methods and their semantics. This contrasts with RPC-
style protocols, which often define new and specific operations with
custom parameters. ROA promotes a more standardised and
interoperable approach, leveraging the existing web infrastructure
and its well-defined semantics. Key aspects of ROA within RPP
include:
* *Resource Identification:* Each resource is uniquely identifiable
by a URL.
* *Uniform Interface:* HTTP methods (HEAD, GET, POST, PUT, DELETE,
PATCH) are used to perform operations on resources in a consistent
manner.
* *Operation Singularity* Operations, excluding collection
retrieval, are defined to target a single resource. Operations
intended to affect multiple resources, such as bulk operations (a
single command applied to multiple resources) or command sets
(multiple commands on multiple resources), should be modelled
through dedicated "batch" or "bulk operation" resources.
* *Representation:* Resources can be represented in various formats
(e.g., JSON, XML) through HTTP standard content negotiation.
* *Statelessness:* Each request to a resource is treated as
independent of previous requests. The server does not maintain
client state between requests.
* *Cacheability:* Responses can be cached to improve performance.
4.2. Architecture Layers
4.2.1. HTTP Transport Layer
This layer defines the transport mechanism for RPP messages,
utilising HTTP as the underlying protocol.
The HTTP Transport Layer consists of two sub-layers:
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
4.2.1.1. Built-in HTTP Features
These are features that are fully specified by the HTTP standard
itself. RPP leverages these features directly, specifying their use
within the protocol without a need to define their behaviour.
It encompasses aspects such as:
* *Transport security:* Mechanisms to secure message transmission
* *Authentication and Authorisation:* Mechanisms for verifying the
identity of clients and controlling access to resources.
* *Resource Addressing using URLs:* Consistent and meaningful URL
structures for identifying, accessing resources and enabling
request routing.
* *Mapping of basic operations to HTTP uniform interface (verbs):*
Mapping CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) operations to POST,
HEAD/GET, PUT/PATCH, and DELETE respectively.
* *Mapping of operations beyond HTTP uniform interface to URLs and
verbs:* Handling more complex operations through appropriate URL
structures and HTTP methods.
* *HTTP response status codes:* Utilising standard HTTP response
status codes to indicate the outcome of requests.
* *Content negotiation for media types:* Supporting multiple data
representation formats and using content negotiation to select the
appropriate format.
* *Caching:* Leveraging HTTP caching mechanisms to improve
performance.
* *Language negotiation for textual content:* Supporting multiple
languages for textual content and using language negotiation to
select the appropriate language.
* *Representation preferences:* The option for a client to indicate
a preference for either a full representation of an object or a
limited representation.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* *Validation preferences:* Defining the approach to the input data
validation that shall be applied by the server. The server may
apply lenient validation where the server makes best effort to
process the understood part of the request as opposed to strict
processing where the server would reject a request where part of
the data is not understood
4.2.1.2. RPP-Specific Extensions
These are protocol features where HTTP provides the necessary
building blocks, but RPP defines additional rules, conventions, or
mechanisms to address protocol-specific requirements.
It encompasses aspects such as:
* *Asynchronous Operation Management:* Facilitating the handling of
operations that are not completed immediately, by defining an
HTTP-based interaction pattern for status checking and deferred
result retrieval.
* *RPP specific error codes and relation to HTTP response status
codes:* Defining RPP-specific error codes while relating them to
standard HTTP response status codes for consistency.
* *Transaction tracing and idempotency:* Mechanisms for tracking
requests and ensuring idempotent operations where appropriate.
* *Versions and profiles:* Support signalling of versions of RPP
protocol and other protocol elements as well as defining sets of
protocol elements and their versions in the form of profiles.
* *Definition of special resources:* Defining specific resources for
service discovery, metadata retrieval, etc.
* *Service discovery mechanisms:* Mechanisms for clients to discover
available RPP services.
4.2.2. Data Representation Layer
This layer focuses on the data representation of RPP messages. It
defines the media type used to carry RPP data and supports various
data representation formats.
It encompasses aspects such as:
* *Data structure:* Defining the structure and schema of the RPP
data, potentially using a specific schema language.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* *Data format:* Defining the specific format used to represent RPP
data within the representation (e.g., JSON, XML or JWT).
* *Media Type definition:* Defining the specific media type to be
used in RPP, including any constraints on the data format and
structure
4.2.3. Resource Definition Layer
This layer defines the structure and operations for each resource
type, independent of media type or representation. It ensures
resources are well-defined and allows for easy extensibility and
compatibility with different media types.
It encompasses aspects such as:
* *Data elements:* Defining the individual data elements that make
up a resource, including their data types, formats, and any
constraints.
* *Resource type definitions:* Defining the structure of specific
resource types by combining data elements.
* *IANA registry definitions:* Potentially registering resource
definitions with IANA for standardised and automated processing.
* *Mapping of data elements to media types:* Defining how the data
elements of a resource type are represented in different media
types (e.g., JSON, XML).
* *Extension mechanisms:* Providing mechanisms for creating new
resource types and for extending existing resource types with new
data elements or operations including potentially new response
status codes.
5. Protocol Details
This section provides further details on each layer of the RPP
architecture.
5.1. HTTP Transport Layer Details
The RPP architecture uses the best practices described in [RFC9205]
for the HTTP transport layer.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.1.1. Transport Security
RPP communication relies on HTTPS with TLS to provide protection for
data in transit, addressing threats such as eavesdropping, tampering,
and man-in-the-middle attacks. Specific security policy details are
delegated to TLS standards and best practices, allowing
implementations to adapt to evolving security requirements without
changes to the protocol specifications.
5.1.2. Authentication and Authorisation
RPP is aimed to leverage scalable and modern authorisation standards,
with a focus on OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and related frameworks. However,
to maintain functional equivalence with EPP client authentication,
RPP SHOULD also support authentication schemes that can carry a
client identifier and a password, such as HTTP Basic Authentication
[RFC7617]. RPP should be able to support future authentication and
authorisation standards defined for HTTP.
5.1.3. Credential management
The management of client credentials is not considered to be a part
of the core protocol, for this an extension can be created using the
extension points described in Section 5.4. This will enable support
for situations where management of authentication credentials is not
delegated to a separate identity provider.
Specifications will define profiles for:
* HTTP Authentication schemes (e.g., HTTP Basic Authentication,
Bearer Token [RFC6750] etc.)
* Authorisation frameworks (e.g., OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749])
Implementations will be able to choose authentication and
authorisation methods appropriate for their security requirements.
5.1.3.1. Authorisation Scopes
RPP specifications will standardise authorisation scopes (like
rpp:read or rpp:write) to define granular access control for
different usage scenarios. These scopes will be defined for various
operations and resource types, ensuring that clients can be granted
only the necessary permissions.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.1.3.2. Fine-Grained Authorisation
RPP authorisation models may become fine-grained, extending beyond
simple auth-code based models used in EPP. Authorisation decisions
will be able to consider the specific operation being performed
(e.g., update vs. read), the resource being accessed (e.g., a
specific domain name), and potentially even attributes within the
resource.
Here solutions like OAuth2 RAR [RFC9396] could be considered to
provide fine-grained access control.
5.1.3.3. Relationship between clients and authentication credentials
RPP authentication and authorisation model will make a clear
distinction between the login credentials and the authorisation to
act in context of a given RPP client. More than one credential might
be authorised to act on behalf of the same RPP client. The same
credential however must always be assigned to one and only one RPP
client context.
In case of HTTP Basic Authentication, one user-id is always bound to
at most one RPP client. For OAuth, the issued token is bound to the
context of at most one RPP client, even though the OAuth client
itself might have access to multiple RPP clients. The assignment of
tokens to specific RPP clients can be controlled through the
authorisation flow using the OAuth scope parameter. For example, if
an OAuth client has access to two RPP clients (Client A and Client
B), the scope parameter can specify which client the token applies
to. A scope value like scope=rpp:clientA would ensure the token is
valid only for Client A, while scope=rpp:clientB would apply to
Client B.
5.1.3.4. Security
RPP will not explicitly define security related policies related to
authentication or authorisation (such as password complexity, token
lifetime, cryptography used, or additional measures to verify the
client) on the protocol level. Instead, these properties will be
delegated to the best practices of the chosen authentication schemes,
which may evolve over time and would have to be independent of the
protocol itself.
5.1.3.5. Credential and Token Lifecycle
RPP will support mechanisms for revoking, rotating or deprecating
credentials, tokens, or permissions when they are no longer needed or
if they become compromised.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
The architecture delegates revocation mechanisms to the specific
authentication method in use, following their established practices.
For OAuth-based deployments, standard token revocation mechanisms as
defined in [RFC7009] should be utilised. For HTTP Basic
Authentication revocation must be fulfilled by off-band operational
practice, or using extension as described in Section 5.1.3 to rotate
the credential. Protocol specifications must emphasise, that
implementations should ensure that revocation takes effect promptly
and that revoked credentials are consistently rejected across all RPP
endpoints.
Service discovery endpoints may advertise supported revocation
mechanisms, enabling clients to discover how to revoke credentials
when necessary.
5.1.3.6. Object level authorisation
RPP will define a mechanism for object-level authorisation,
preventing unauthorised access to specific objects or resources.
Each object will have an associated sponsor or owner with full
control over an object, and the protocol will allow for the
specification of which clients are authorised to access or modify
non-sponsored/owned objects. This could be achieved through state-
of-the-art standards like OAuth authorisation tokens, scopes, and
resource-specific permissions but also shared secrets for backward
compatibility with EPP password-based authorisation information. All
RPP specifications shall support the operational practices described
in [RFC9154], such as not allowing long-term storage of plaintext EPP
AuthInfo used for object transfer operations. All parties involved
in a running or completed process, such as the Sponsoring Client and
the Gaining Client for a transfer operation, must be allowed to query
the status of the process using the same process resource.
5.1.4. Resource Addressing
RPP resources are addressed using URLs. Considerations include:
* Hierarchical URL structure to represent resources of different
types (e.g., /domains/{domain-name}, /contacts/{contact-id}).
* URL structure to represent list of related resources (e.g.,
/domains/{domain-name}/contacts/)
RPP URL structure will be designed to be human-readable, intuitive,
and RESTful, allowing clients to easily navigate and interact with
resources.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
RPP would not require all URLs to be hard wired to server's RPP root
URL. Instead, it would allow for relative URLs to be defined and
discovered by the client. This would allow servers to distribute
resources across multiple servers and URLs and allow for easier
scaling as described in [RFC9205]. At the same time the URLs shall
be deterministic for the duration of the client session in order to
minimise round trips and streamline the interaction.
As a matter of extensibility consideration RPP should allow for
additional path segments to be added to the URLs and be discoverable
by clients.
RPP responses will include URLs for related resources, allowing
clients to navigate newly created resources easily. This is similar
to the "links" concept in RESTful APIs, where related resources are
linked together.
5.1.4.1. Collection Representation
RPP supports retrieval of collections of resources via dedicated
collection endpoints (e.g., /domains/ for listing domains). For
collections that may contain large numbers of resources, RPP supports
pagination using established mechanisms such as HTTP Link headers as
defined in [RFC8288]. Items within a collection may be returned as
partial representations rather than full resource details, reducing
payload size. Clients can retrieve full details by following links
to individual resources. RPP may also support query parameters for
filtering and sorting collection results.
These capabilities are optional at the protocol level. RPP does not
mandate bulk operations, resource listing, or filtering where such
functionality may negatively impact server scalability or
performance. Server operators may choose not to support these
features, or may restrict their scope, based on their operational
requirements. Supported capabilities are advertised through the
service discovery mechanism (see Section 5.1.22).
5.1.4.2. Internationalised Domain Names (IDN)
RPP will address the handling of IDNs in resource addressing.
Specifications will define whether to use IDN or UTF-8 encoding
directly in URLs and whether to employ redirects to canonical URLs or
"see-also" linking for alternative representations. For example, a
"see-also" link could point from a UTF-8 encoded URL to an IDN URL
and vice versa, allowing clients to use either URL. Another way
would be to always redirect to the canonical URL, which would be the
IDN URL.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.1.4.3. Canonical Addressing
A single resource can be addressed using multiple alternative
identifiers in a URL. These identifiers may represent different
alternative syntactic forms, these include, but are not limited to:
* Internationalised identifiers (IDNs) and their ASCII/Punycode
equivalents
* Unicode identifiers and their percent-encoded representations
The canonical address is the authoritative identifier for the
resource and is the form that RPP uses for:
* Persistent storage and internal references
* Hypermedia links generated by the server
* Resource metadata and self-links
* Equality checks
Any other valid address for the same resource is to be treated
strictly as an alias. When a resource is addressed using an alias,
RPP must ensure canonicalisation through at least one of the
following mechanisms:
* Redirecting the client to the canonical URL
* Returning a representation that explicitly declares the canonical
URL
* Internally resolving the alias to the canonical identifier before
any authorisation, or state mutation occurs
Canonicalisation shall be performed prior to any operation that
depends on resource identity.
5.1.5. Mapping of basic operations to HTTP uniform interface (verbs)
RPP operations are mapped to standard HTTP methods to leverage the
uniform interface and RESTful principles:
* *HEAD:* Retrieve resource state (e.g., retrieving domain existence
information). This may be a candidate for equivalence of EPP
check command, however it may come with a few caveats to consider:
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
- EPP check is intended to check whether (future) resource
provisioning is possible. This is not semantically the same as
resource state. Overloading HEAD with EPP semantics may lead
to confusion, especially as some frameworks implicitly
implement HEAD out of GET handling.
- a better equivalence of EPP check would be a POST with Expect
header, however this header being a reserved header in browsers
it may not be available to all client implementations
The conclusion is that RPP should not overload HTTP HEAD with own
semantics, and support HEAD as it is defined in HTTP.
* *OPTIONS* RPP shall not define any new semantics for OPTIONS
however the specifications should make implementers aware of its
role in CORS and pre-flight requests typically made by web
browsers
* *GET:* Retrieve resource state (e.g., retrieving domain or contact
information) - EPP info command
* *POST:* Create a new resource (e.g., registering a domain or
create contact object) - EPP create command
* *PUT:* Update an existing resource in its entirety (e.g., updating
domain registration details) - not 100% equivalent of EPP update
command
* *DELETE:* Delete a resource (e.g., deleting a domain registration)
- EPP delete command
* *PATCH:* Partially modify a resource (e.g., updating specific
attributes of a domain or contact) - EPP update command
5.1.6. Mapping of operations beyond HTTP uniform interface to URLs and
verbs
Many of EPP commands do not map directly to the HTTP uniform
interface. RPP will define how to handle these operations using
appropriate URL structures and HTTP methods. In order to model
additional operations RPP will define an abstraction of process, this
being either a transient or a long running operations with state. In
both cases such process may accept additional input data as well as
have an outcome or result not being part of the resource state
itself. Processes shall therefore be modelled as separate sub-
resources of the resource being processed, with own uniform interface
and set of operations (CRUD).
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
EPP transfer commands (query and transform), may be modelled by a
subresource /transfer of the resource being transferred, or a
collection /transfers with a PUT/POST operation correspondingly to
initiate the transfer, GET operation to query the transfer status and
POST operation to approve or reject the transfer.
Other transform operations like renew, or restore which are not
directly addressable resources in terms of REST will modelled as a
convention of URLs with processing resources with only POST
interface, e.g. /renewal.
Bulk operations can be supported on collections of resources, such as
updating multiple domain objects within a single transaction. URLs
for bulk operations must unambiguously indicate that the operation
targets multiple objects, ensuring clear intent for clients and
servers. Unless explicitly specified otherwise by the server
operator, bulk operations should be executed atomically in a single
transaction, guaranteeing consistency across all affected resources.
This pattern can be further applied to object operations not defined
in the core protocol or EPP, allowing easy and uniform extension of
allowed operations.
In order to minimise name collisions between process names and other
kind of sub-resources, a distinct path segment shall be dedicated to
processes, e.g. /processes/{process-name} or /operations/{operation-
name}.
The path segments shall be appended to the resource path to create
full URI of such processing resource (e.g. /domains/{domain-
name}/processes/renewal for domain renew operation).
As discussed in Section 5.1.5 EPP check command may not be
appropriate to be mapped directly to the HTTP uniform interface of
the resource itself. EPP check command will be therefore modelled as
sub-resource such as /availability offering both HEAD operation for
quick yes/no response and GET operation for more detailed response
allowing for example to extend on the dataset provided (e.g. pricing
information).
This basic set of rules and guidelines will be further refined in the
RPP specifications and give a universal toolset for extending RPP
with new resources and commands.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.1.7. Server-Managed Resources
RPP supports the definition of first-class resources whose state is
managed exclusively by the server rather than provisioned by clients.
These server-managed resources are read-only from the client's
perspective, permitting only retrieval operations (GET, HEAD) through
the uniform interface. Modification operations (POST, PUT, PATCH,
DELETE) are not available to clients for these resources.
Server-managed resources are identified by URLs following the same
addressing conventions as client-provisioned resources. They
participate fully in RPP's resource model, including content
negotiation, caching, and representation formats. The read-only
nature of these resources is enforced by the server, which responds
with appropriate HTTP status codes (e.g., 405 Method Not Allowed or
403 Forbidden) if a client attempts a modification operation.
Further aspects of server-managed resources, including examples and
sub-resource relationships, are described in Section 5.3.5.
5.1.8. HTTP response status codes
In general RPP shall make use of HTTP response status codes to
indicate general response status categories (e.g., 2xx success
responses, 4xx for client errors, 5xx for server errors) [RFC7231] as
opposed to responding always 200 if the request was understood even
if the operation itself failed. This allows clients and
intermediaries to make first level of determination of the requests
outcome based on the status code alone, without needing to parse the
response body.
RPP shall use as specific HTTP response status codes as possible,
using generic codes like 400 Bad Request or 500 Internal Server Error
only if no corresponding specific code exists (e.g. 404 for not
existing resource or 401 for unauthenticated request).
More specific RPP codes are elaborated in Section 5.1.16.
5.1.9. Content negotiation for media types
RPP supports content negotiation to allow clients to specify
preferred media types for request and response payloads using the
HTTP 'Accept' and 'Content-Type' headers [RFC7231].
* "application/rpp+json" as the primary media type.
* potential media type parameters for versioning, profiles, and
other protocol elements.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* Potential support for other media types defined in the Section 5.2
5.1.10. Caching
RPP shall benefit from HTTP standard caching mechanisms to enable
standard components like proxies and caches to improve performance
and reduce load on servers. RPP shall define caching policies for
different resources and operations, including cache-control headers
and ETag support.
5.1.11. Language negotiation for textual content
RPP shall support language negotiation to enable clients to request
responses in a preferred language using the HTTP 'Accept-Language'
header [RFC7231].
* Server implementations MAY support multiple languages for textual
content in responses to provide human-readable localised
responses.
* The default language and mechanisms for indicating supported
languages will be defined, preferably using HTTP methods, like
OPTIONS or HEAD requests.
* "application/rpp+json" media type may support multi-language
representations, especially for writing operations involving user
provided content. Other media types may have different mechanisms
for language representation.
5.1.12. Client Signalling for Response Verbosity
RPP may utilise the HTTP Prefer header [RFC7240] with the "return"
preference to allow clients to control the verbosity of responses.
For example, clients not interested in full resource representations
could use Prefer: return=minimal to request minimal responses,
reducing payload sizes and improving efficiency or Prefer:
return=representation to receive full representation of the object.
The default behaviour, without the Prefer header, would be to return
a full representation only for GET requests and a minimal resource
representation in all other cases, similar to responses in EPP, and
following the data minimisation principles. For certain use-cases it
might be convenient for a client to receive also dereferenced full or
partial representation of related objects. For example details about
sponsoring client of domain name instead of just ID. "return"
preference syntax alone is not sufficient for this purpose, therefore
RPP would need to define custom preference and register it in "HTTP
Preferences" IANA registry.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.1.13. Client Signalling for Request Validation
RPP may utilise the HTTP Prefer header [RFC7240] for signalling the
preference for either strict or lenient processing of requests. This
allows clients to indicate whether they prefer strict validation of
message payloads and rejection of requests with unknown properties or
a more lenient approach ignoring unknown properties that may allow
for additional flexibility in processing. The default behaviour,
without the Prefer header, would be strict validation.
5.1.14. Asynchronous Operation Processing
The RPP architecture accommodates operations that are potentially
long-running or cannot be completed synchronously due to their nature
(e.g., acting on multiple objects, resource-intensive tasks, or
processes involving manual steps). This is achieved by leveraging
standard HTTP mechanisms to provide an asynchronous interaction
pattern. This pattern allows a client to initiate an operation and
receive an immediate acknowledgement, with the means to check the
operation's status and retrieve its outcome at a later point.
The typical interaction flow facilitated by the architecture is as
follows: 1. A client initiates an operation via an HTTP request. 2.
For operations processed asynchronously, the server typically
responds immediately with an appropriate HTTP response status code
and an indication of a status resource where the client would be able
to obtain result of the operation. The resource may be dedicated to
the specific performed operation, be a subresource of the resource
being processed, or be a separate message queue resource with a
stream of operation results. 3. The server may also provide
additional signalling in the response to indicate the expected time
for completion or other relevant information using standard HTTP
mechanisms. 4. The representation of the status resource reflects
the operation's progress. Once the operation concludes, this
representation indicates the final outcome, providing either the
results directly, links to the results, or detailed error information
in line with RPP's error reporting principles. It shall remain up to
protocol design for certain operation and server policy which
granularity of status information shall be offered. In some cases it
might be sufficient to have one final message, in other cases
intermediate statuses might be required. The lifetime of these
resources might also be differentiated. Messages in the queue would
exist until they are read out by the RPP client. Other status
resources might exist for a specific time defined by the server after
the processing reached its final state. Finally resources might
virtually exist forever or require an explicit delete operation from
the client.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
This architectural approach to asynchronous operations allows client
applications to remain responsive and manage extended processing
times effectively, contributing to the overall scalability and
robustness of interactions within the RPP ecosystem. Specific RPP
operations intended for asynchronous execution will be designed to
utilise this pattern.
5.1.15. Service Messages
RPP provides a mechanism for servers to communicate service messages
to clients, offering a functional equivalent to the EPP Poll command
described in [RFC5730]. Service messages may include notifications
about events affecting client resources (such as transfer requests,
expiration warnings, or administrative actions), system
announcements, or other server-initiated communications.
In order to enable effective and unambiguous processing of the
messages, the data model of a message defines metadata fields with a
type of a message and extension or a profile used to produce it.
RPP defines message queue resources that clients can access to
discover and retrieve pending service messages. The baseline
interaction pattern follows a read-first/acknowledge-delete approach:
1. The client queries the message queue resource to retrieve the
first available message.
2. The client processes the message content.
3. The client explicitly acknowledges the message through a DELETE
operation, removing it from the queue. This step can optionally
be optimised to execute together with step 1 for the following
message.
In order to assure idempotency and proper processing in case of
concurrent clients, each service message carries a unique message id,
which allows clients to assure the correct message is acknowledged
and deleted in step 3.
RPP offers separate queues per message type, so that clients may
split the workload to several specialised readers, however a unified
queue of all messages is offered for convenience and EPP
compatibility.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
The baseline mechanism may be extended through message filtering,
where clients may apply filters using query parameters when querying
the message queue to retrieve only messages matching specific
criteria. This feature might be useful to peek messages related to a
certain object without need to process the whole queue.
The design of message partitioning in separate queues and filters
must assure processing order of related or interdependent messages,
so that the client can reconstruct a consistent state of an object at
all times.
Information about unread messages may be delivered as a custom HTTP
header with each queue response. Such header can be also added to
other responses (for example with the first response after the queue
state change or every n-th response or time based) in order to give a
hint to the client about unread messages, however possible negative
impact on server operation and performance shall be taken into
account.
The design of end points to retrieve/acknowledge/delete service
messages shall assure further extensibility to optionally allow
operation on multiple messages in a single request, reducing round
trips for clients with many pending messages.
The architecture does not address service message streaming or other
push-based approaches to message delivery, however these solutions
can be added at any time later without changes to the base mechanisms
described above.
5.1.16. RPP specific status codes and relation to HTTP response status
codes
RPP uses a dual-layer approach for signalling operation outcomes,
leveraging both standard HTTP response status codes and RPP-specific
status codes. This allows for compatibility with generic HTTP
components while providing detailed, application-level feedback for
RPP clients.
* The HTTP response status code [RFC7231] must be used to convey the
overall outcome of an operation. Any HTTP-aware component, such
as a proxy or monitoring tool, can determine if a request was
successful (2xx), resulted in a client error (4xx), or a server
error (5xx) by inspecting the HTTP response status code alone.
* RPP-specific status codes, transmitted in a dedicated HTTP header,
must be used to provide granular, application-level information
about the operation's result.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* RPP responses must include both an HTTP response status code and
an RPP-specific status code, however in some cases request
handling may be terminated already on HTTP level, for example due
malformed HTTP message, in such cases only HTTP response status
code will be present.
* RPP-specific status codes should be mapped to the most
semantically appropriate HTTP response status code. For example,
an RPP status code indicating "object already exists" during a
creation attempt should map to HTTP 409 (Conflict), while a code
for "object does not exist" during a lookup should map to HTTP 404
(Not Found). If no specific HTTP response status code is a good
semantic fit, a generic code (e.g., 400 for a general client-side
business rule failure, 200 for a successful operation with
additional information) should be used.
* This mechanism applies to both successful and unsuccessful
operations. A successful response (e.g., HTTP 200 OK) may include
an RPP-specific header to provide additional information, such as
warnings, deprecation notices, or details about a partial success.
* In the case of an error, the response body should contain a
machine-readable problem details document [RFC9457] to provide
further information about the error.
* RPP status codes should be categorised as either temporary or
permanent to guide client retry behaviour.
* RPP should also use other standardised HTTP signaling mechanisms
where appropriate, for example for rate limiting.
5.1.17. Transaction tracing and idempotency
RPP shall support identification of requests and responses on both
client side and server side with use of client provided identifiers
and server provided identifiers. This will allow for tracking of
requests and responses in case of errors, and for idempotency of
requests.
Client provided identifier shall be returned in the corresponding
synchronous response and shall be included in the asynchronous
responses. This identifier shall be also used as idempotency
identifier to allow clients to retry requests without risk of
duplicate processing. The client provided identifier shall be unique
for the client and the lifetime of the identifier shall be defined by
the server, typically for a limited time after the request was
processed.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
Server shall always generate own unique transaction identifier,
regardless of nature of the transaction (reading or changing).
The transmission of transaction identifiers should be defined outside
of the Data Representation Layer (e.g. as HTTP Headers), to assure
clear separation of resource representation from performed actions.
If possible existing mechanisms of HTTP shall be employed.
5.1.18. Message verification
RPP may optionally support the creation and verification of digital
signatures to provide an additional layer of protection by enabling
the client and server to verify message integrity and authenticity.
The mechanism for signing and verification of a message is described
in [RFC9421]. Clients must provide their cryptographic public
key(s), used for signing requests, to the RPP server operator via an
out-of-band process. The server, in turn, will publish its public
keys, used for signing responses, through the RPP capabilities
discovery mechanism.
5.1.19. Protocol Versioning
RPP will define a versioning schema for the protocol itself, the
extensions and other protocol elements such as profiles as
appropriate. The versioning schema shall on one side allow for
independent introduction of new features in a non-breaking manner on
both client and server side, and on the other side allow the opposite
party of the communication to determine if the version is compatible
or not. One of potential approaches having this property might be
use of Semantic Versioning [SemVer], but also other versioning schema
shall be possible.
Signalling of the versions will be preferably realised using
parameters of the media type.
5.1.20. Profiles
In real operational conditions different RPP server operators may
have different requirements regarding set of protocol elements and
their versions necessary to be supported by the client to enable
reliable communication. Such requirements may also be defined by
external policies. For this purpose RPP will define a concept of
profiles, being identifiers translated into a certain minimum
configuration of protocol version, extensions and their versions.
The profiles themselves will be versioned in the same way as other
protocol elements. Commonly used profiles may be published in a
dedicated IANA registry to promote reuse of profiles. A client or
server will use the IANA identifier for a profile to indicate support
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
for the profile.
RPP may define a machine-readable definition of profiles to allow
automatic processing by the clients, but may also refer to other
forms of profile specification.
Signalling of the profiles will be preferably realised using
parameters of the media type.
5.1.21. Definition of special resources
RPP may define special resources for specific purposes:
* Service Discovery endpoints to advertise protocol capabilities and
supported features (see Section 5.1.22).
* Metadata endpoints to provide schema information or other
protocol-level metadata, potentially including OpenAPI definitions
for documentation and code generation.
5.1.22. Service discovery mechanisms
RPP defines mechanisms for service discovery, allowing clients to
dynamically discover RPP service endpoints, capabilities, and
operational policies. This reduces coupling between clients and
servers and enables clients to adapt to server configurations without
hard-coded assumptions. Service discovery is used to bootstrap the
communication between client and server, its capabilities, and
operational policies.
5.1.22.1. Service location bootstrapping
In order to discover the location of RPP services for a given TLD or
other kind of registry RPP may employ publishing bootstrapping
information in IANA registry backed with an API (similar to RDAP
bootstrapping as per [RFC9224] or special DNS TXT resource records.
5.1.22.2. Service discovery document
The service discovery document is a machine-readable resource that
describes a server's capabilities, supported features, and
operational policies. Clients retrieve this document to understand
how to interact with the server and what behaviour to expect. The
document includes:
* Supported protocol versions, extensions, and available resource
types.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* Supported authentication methods and security requirements.
* IDN policies and handling conventions.
* Maintenance notices, informing clients about scheduled service
unavailability.
* Data privacy policies, including information about data collection
(what personal or sensitive data is collected and for what
purposes), data retention (how long data is stored), and privacy
practices (how data is protected and with whom it may be shared).
* URI templates [RFC6570] for advertised resource endpoints,
allowing clients to navigate directly to known resources without
additional server queries and without hard-coding URLs.
* Cryptographic key(s) used by the server for signing responses,
which clients may use as an additional check for verification of
response authenticity.
* Links to external resources related to the server or its
operational context, such as release notes, change logs, or policy
documents.
By default the document will be published using well-known URIs
[RFC8615] (e.g., /.well-known/rpp-capabilities) for retrieving
service discovery documents. In order to improve scalability it is
worth considering to distribute discovery endpoints per resource type
(e.g., /domains/.well-known/rpp-capabilities) instead of a single
registry-wide endpoint.
5.1.22.3. Discovery document freshness
The server configuration is considered static between its
reconfigurations and is not used for dynamic purposes such as load
balancing. RPP therefore defines a versioning mechanism for the
service discovery document to allow clients to detect when the
document has changed. To minimise unnecessary re-fetching, both
parties signal the version they are operating with: the client
indicates the version of the discovery document it currently holds,
and the server signals the current version in its responses. This
mutual version signalling allows the server to detect when a client
is operating with a stale document and prompt it to retrieve an
updated version. Where a new version introduces breaking changes or
deprecates features, the server may additionally warn the client in
advance before the change takes effect.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.1.23. Scalability
RPP leverages HTTP, enabling the use of standard web scalability
techniques such as load balancing, horizontal scaling, and
distributed caching. Stateless interactions allow requests to be
handled independently, facilitating distribution across multiple
servers and rapid scaling in response to demand. RPP shall enable by
design existing web security and mitigation mechanisms to defend
against attacks such as Denial of Service (DoS).
5.2. Data Representation Layer
This layer focuses on the data representation of RPP messages. It
defines the media type used to carry RPP data and supports various
data representation formats.
5.2.1. Data structure
RPP will define the overall structure of the message payload carried
by the chosen media type. By default one data structure will be
defined, however RPP should be able to support multiple data
structures, especially for compatibility with EPP and other
standards.
* *'RPP' Structure:* Defining a new, dedicated data structure
specifically for RPP messages. This would be the default in core
specifications.
Other future possibilities:
* *'EPP' Structure Adaptation:* Reusing or adapting to the existing
EPP XML schemas, to maintain data model compatibility with EPP
core objects and simplify mapping from EPP.
* *'JSContact' Structure Adaptation:* Adapting to the existing JSON
representation for Contact Information [RFC9553], to maintain
alignment with RDAP.
* *'VC' Structure Adaptation:* Adapting to existing Verifiable
Credentials ([W3C-VC], [SD-JWT]) data structures, especially for
representing identity or authorisation information, allowing for
integration with external identity systems.
5.2.2. Data format
The primary format for RPP data representations shall be JSON,
however RPP should be able to be extended to support other formats
like XML, JWT, JWT-SD or CBOR.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* *JSON:* Standard JSON format [RFC8259].
* *XML:* eXtensible Markup Language [XML] (considered for potential
compatibility with EPP).
* *JWT:* JSON data encapsulated within a JSON Web Token [RFC7519]
for potential use-cases when verifiable data consistency is
required
* *JWT-SD:* JSON data with Selective Disclosure using JWTs [RFC9901]
for minimisation of exposed data.
* *CBOR:* Concise Binary Object Representation for specific use
cases requiring compact binary encoding [RFC8949].
Some data formats can be optionally represented in other
encapsulations, for example JSON data can be represented also in JWT
or CBOR. Change of encapsulation shall not affect the data
structure. This might be beneficial if RPP is to be extended to
support different data formats in the future that only require
additional properties provided by encapsulation, like signing,
encryption or binary representation.
5.2.3. Data Validation
Data structures and formats will be described using a schema
language, such as JSON Schema, OpenAPI, CDDL or other appropriate
stable and open standard for JSON data structures. It will enable
data validation to be performed by both client and servers on
received requests and responses. For example, JSON Schema can define
the expected structure of a domain object, including required fields
and data types, allowing clients to validate their requests before
sending them and servers to ensure incoming data conforms to the
expected format. The schemas must support both strict and lenient
processing of requests and responses and support protocol
extensibility.
5.2.4. Media Type definition
Together data structure and data format would define the whole media
type. So "application/rpp+json" would be the primary media type with
"rpp" payloads in plain json format. "application/epp+xml" would be
epp payload as per [RFC5730].
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.2.5. Optionality
The result of a RPP operation may result in an empty HTTP message
body when mapped to a representation, for example a check for
existence is allowed return only HTTP and RPP headers to indicate the
result of the executed operation.
5.3. Resource Definition Layer
Each resource type, no matter if on a top level, being an independent
provisioning object, or a subresource, being a part of another
resource, shall be well defined including data elements and possible
operations. A resource definition shall on the first level of
abstraction be composable out of data elements, without any reference
to the media type or representation. This will allow for easy
extensibility and compatibility with different media types.
All resource types shall be defined in IANA registry in a way that
allows fully automated processing of the resource definition,
including data elements, operations and media type representation.
5.3.1. Data Elements
This part defines logical data elements for each resource type, which
can also be re-used across resource types. It is abstracted from the
actual transport and media type, focusing on the structure and
constraints of data elements. Data element definition includes:
* Identification of logical data units (e.g. a stable identifier of
a data element, which is independent of the representation)
* Definition of logical data units (e.g., domain name, contact
details)
* Format and schema for primitive data elements or reference to
other resource type definitions
* Definition of container elements, which are logical groupings that
can encapsulate zero or more data elements or other containers.
Container types include ordered lists (e.g., a sequence of
nameservers) and maps (e.g., key-value pairs for extension data).
The representation of container elements in specific data formats
is defined by the mapping layer.
* Constraints on data elements (e.g., data type, length, allowed
values)
* Mechanisms for extensibility, if applicable
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
Data elements shall be defined in IANA registry in a way that allows
for automated processing of the data element definition, including
constraints and references to other data elements.
5.3.1.1. Required and Optional Data Elements
RPP Core specifications define the data elements that are required
for the technical provisioning and maintenance of objects as required
at the protocol level. Other defined data elements are optional at
the protocol level.
Servers may designate any protocol-optional data element as mandatory
according to their local server policy. Such server-specific
requirements are communicated to clients through profile definitions
or service discovery mechanisms.
5.3.2. Relationships
Resource types can define explicit relationships (links) to other
resource types, supporting flexible cardinality-including one-to-one,
one-to-many, and many-to-many associations. This enables robust
modelling, navigation, and management of complex, interconnected
resources within RPP. A relationship must also be able to define its
own properties or attributes, such as type of relationship or other
kind of metadata assigned to the relation link itself rather than an
object on any side of relation.
5.3.3. Mapping
This layer defines the mapping of Data Elements onto the Data
Representation Layer. For example in case of "application/rpp+json"
media type, the mapping layer would define how the logical data units
are represented in JSON format.
This additional level of indirection would allow usage of data
formats defined outside of rpp specifications - for example usage of
Verifiable Credentials or Verifiable Presentations as first class
resource types for contacts in RPP, and mapping appropriate data
elements.
The mapping layer shall be defined in IANA registry in a way that
allows for automated processing of the mapping definition, including
reading and writing operations. Mechanisms, such as defined for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch [RFC6902], may be used to
define the mapping.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
5.3.4. Operations
Each resource type shall define operations possible on this resource
type. This may encompass any of the mechanisms defined on the HTTP
transport layer.
Operations shall be defined in IANA registry in a way that allows for
automated processing of the operation definition, including
constraints and references to other resource types.
5.3.5. Server-Managed Resource Types
As mentioned in Section 5.1.7, RPP supports server-managed resources
as first-class resource types. These resources are defined using the
same mechanisms as client-provisioned resources, including data
elements, mappings, and IANA registry entries. The distinction lies
in the permitted operations: server-managed resource types restrict
operations to read-only access (GET, HEAD).
Examples of server-managed resource types include:
* Registry policy information (e.g., supported TLDs, pricing,
registration rules)
* Server operational status and health information
* Statistics
Server-managed resources may expose logically associated information
as sub-resources.
A special class of server managed resources would represent
provisioning objects, which cannot be modified by any external
client, but rather are managed by server operator. From the external
client view those resources would be read-only, however the server
might actually implement modifying operations to those objects
available only to internal clients and tools, controlled by
authorisation mechanisms.
5.3.6. Data privacy
RPP request and response representations may contain personal data or
other sensitive information subject to privacy regulations. The
architecture incorporates mechanisms that enable implementations to
adhere to data privacy principles such as data minimisation and
purpose limitation.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
Data minimisation is supported through the protocol's design
principle that only strictly necessary data elements are required at
the protocol level (see Section 5.3.1). Servers may further
constrain which elements are required through profile definitions.
The Prefer header mechanism (see Section 5.1.21) allows clients to
request minimal representations, and Fine-Grained Authorisation (see
Section 5.1.3.2) and Object level authorisation (see Section 5.1.3.6)
enable servers to return only the data a client is authorised to
access.
Purpose limitation is supported through multiple mechanisms. Data
element definitions may include purpose attributes, indicating the
specific processing purposes for which each element is intended.
Authorisation scopes (see Section 5.1.2) can be defined to restrict
access to data elements based on their declared purpose, ensuring
that clients only receive data relevant to their authorised use. The
service discovery document (see Section 5.1.22) advertises data
collection purposes, allowing clients to understand how their data
will be used and retained before submission.
5.4. Extension mechanisms
The RPP architecture is designed to be extensible, allowing for the
addition of new resource types, data elements, and operations without
breaking existing implementations while maintaining interoperability
and stability. This enables RPP to integrate with emerging
technologies and support a wide range of provisioning scenarios.
5.4.1. Layered Extensibility
The layered design ensures that each architectural layer (HTTP
Transport, Data Representation, Resource Definition) is defined
independently, allowing new features or technologies to be introduced
at one layer without impacting others. This separation enables
focused extension of specific protocol aspects and preserves overall
coherence.
5.4.2. Protocol Element Extension
Extensions may introduce new protocol elements at various levels of
granularity:
* New resource types and server-managed resource types with their
complete definitions
* Additional data elements that can be incorporated into existing or
new resource types
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* New operations on existing resources, including process sub-
resources
* Additional parameters for existing operations
* Additional result information in operation responses
* New RPP status codes with their mappings to HTTP response status
codes
* New HTTP headers for conveying RPP-specific data structures or
control signals
5.4.3. IANA Registry-Based Discovery
Resource types, data elements, mappings, and operations are
registered in IANA registries using machine-readable formats. This
enables automated processing, discovery, and extension of protocol
elements without requiring changes to the core specifications.
Extensions must be registered with IANA to facilitate standardisation
and reuse. These registration requirements are fine-grained,
applying independently to protocol elements such as resource types,
data elements, operations, and status codes. This approach promotes
consistency and interoperability, avoids fragmentation from
conflicting definitions, and allows protocol elements to evolve
independently.
5.4.4. Compatibility and Profiles
Compatibility profiles can be defined to support subsets of RPP for
specific use cases, such as EPP compatibility profiles that enable
gradual migration or interoperability scenarios. Service discovery
endpoints and content negotiation mechanisms allow clients and
servers to dynamically discover and utilise new capabilities,
resource types, and representations as they are introduced.
5.4.5. Name Management and Collision Avoidance
RPP extensions MUST define unique names for all extension elements to
prevent conflicts with other extensions and with core protocol
elements. These names are used consistently in resource identifiers,
data element identifiers, and URL path segments.
Standardised RPP extensions MUST register their names in a dedicated
IANA registry for RPP extensions to ensure global uniqueness and
avoid collisions. Private (non-standardised) extensions are also
required to use unique names, but are not required to register with
IANA. This allows private extensions to be developed and used within
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
specific implementations or organisations without impacting the
global RPP ecosystem. Private extensions should use names that are
unlikely to conflict with other extensions or with RPP core elements,
for example by using reverse domain notation as a prefix (e.g.,
org.example.rpp).
This naming mechanism ensures that new resource types, data elements,
and operations can be introduced independently and safely, supporting
the extensibility goals of the RPP architecture while maintaining
interoperability and clarity across implementations.
5.4.6. Extension Security
Extensions operate within the same security architecture as the core
protocol. Security, authentication, and authorisation mechanisms
defined at the HTTP Transport Layer (see Section 5.1.2) apply
uniformly to both core protocol operations and all extensions. This
"security by design" approach is aimed to ensure that extensions
cannot bypass or weaken the security posture established by the core
protocol. Extensions must not introduce new authentication or
authorisation mechanisms that circumvent or conflict with those
defined by the core specifications.
5.4.7. Extension Review
Before any extension is accepted by IANA, a review by an RPP expert
must be performed. This review includes verification that the
extension does not violate any of the RPP security considerations and
that it correctly integrates with the protocol's security framework.
The complete review criteria will be included in the "IANA
Considerations" section of any document describing RPP extension
mechanisms, according to the BCP described in [RFC8126].
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the architecture for the RPP and requires no
actions by IANA.
All references to potential IANA registrations in this document, such
as media types, extension registries, or other protocol artefacts,
are strictly informational. They describe design considerations and
anticipated future needs of the RPP protocol. Any actual IANA
actions resulting from the RPP protocol will be requested in
standards-track protocol specification documents that define the
concrete protocol elements.
7. Change History
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
7.1. -00 to -01
* Extension Mechanisms
- Refactoring of Extension mechanisms Section and addition of
extensibility with transient request parameters and responses
(Issues #94 and #95)
- Added HTTP Headers to the "extension-mechanisms" section (Issue
#93).
- Added Extension Security and Extension Review Sections to
Section 5.4 (Issue #91).
* Service Discovery & Profiles
- Added data privacy to Service discovery mechanisms and new
"Data privacy" section. Refactored the whole section
Section 5.1.22 (Issue #100).
- Added Advertising of maintenance notices to "Service Discovery"
section. (Issue #88)
- Added text about compatibility profiles to "Profiles" section.
(Issue #29)
* Collections, Bulk Operations & Filtering
- Added Section Collection Representation for API-level
collection retrieval and expanded container element description
in Data Elements Section. (Issue #85)
- Extended Collection Representation to clarify that bulk
operations, listing, and filtering are optional and must not be
mandated where they negatively impact scalability or
performance (Issue #41).
* Security & Authentication*
- Added "additional measures to verify the client" to
Section 5.1.3.4 (Issue #76).
- Added TLS mandatory to Section 5.1.1 (Issue #78).
- Create "Credential management" section for updating credentials
using an extension.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
- Added Section Section 5.1.3.5 for credential and token
revocation/replacement mechanisms (Issue #79).
- Added text about signing messages in the "Message verification"
section. (Issue #33)
- Added reference to RFC9154 in the "Object level authorisation"
section. (Issue #89)
* HTTP Layer
- Added "Canonical Addressing" section (Issue #81)
- Added "Optionality" section to explicitly allow empty HTTP
message body in a response (Issue #97).
- Fixed inconsistent usage of HTTP status codes (Issue #108).
* Resource Definition & Data Model
- Added a "Relationships" section to describe resource type
relationships. (Issue #83)
- Added Section Required and Optional Data Elements to Data
Elements to explicitly address protocol-level vs. server-
policy-level data element requirements (Requirement R4.3).
- Added Server-Managed Resources Section to HTTP Transport Layer
Details and Server-Managed Resource Types Section to Resource
Definition Layer to define read-only server-managed resources
(Issue #84).
- Explicitly state that all parties involved in a process are
allowed to retrieve the process status. (Issue #98)
- Added Section Section 5.1.15 to describe poll message
equivalent (Issue #87).
* Protocol Behaviour
- Changed default validation from lenient to strict. (Issue #82)
- Added "Scalability" section. (Issue #92)
* Editorial & Terminology
- Added IDN to "Terminology" and "Service discovery mechanisms"
sections
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
- Added boilerplate IANA Considerations section
- Editorial: updated document references
7.2. -03 to draft-ietf-rpp-architecture-00
* No changes. Document adopted by RPP WG.
7.3. -02 to -03
* split into HTTP built-ins and custom RPP in Section 4.2.1.
Reorganised Section 5.1 to reflect that and added/rewritten some
parts to cover all aspects.
* Clarified the relationship and mapping between HTTP response
status codes and RPP-specific status codes in Section 5.1.16.
* Added paragraph on promotion of standard extensions to
Section 5.4.
* Fixed broken references to non-RFC documents
* Explicitly stated that RPP SHOULD support client_id/password
authentication for EPP compatibility in Section 5.1.2.
7.4. -01 to -02
* Added responses must contain links to relevant object to
Section 5.1.4
* Added round trip minimisation principle to Section 5.1.22
* Added description of lenient versus strict request validation to
Section 4.2.3.
* Added description of asynchronous handling to Section 4.2.1 and
Section 5.1.
* Added Operation Singularity to Section 4.1.
* Added Versioning chapter to Section 5.1.
* Added Profiles chapter to Section 5.1.
* Added Security section to Section 5.1.2.
* Added Relationship between clients and authentication credentials
to Section 5.1.2.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
* Add Data Validation (Section 5.2.3) section with schema language
support for RPP to Section 5.2
* Added Name Management and Collision Avoidance section to
Section 5.4.
* Added Section about dereferenced related object representation to
Section 5.1.21.
7.5. -00 to -01
* Removed requirements and replaced with a reference to RPP WG
* Encapsulation removed as a primary extension point and part of
architecture
* Added reference to JSContact as a possible contact representation
* Added HEAD verb to basic operations
* Updated RPP specific status codes and relation to HTTP response
status codes
* Added Extension mechanisms section to Protocol Details
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC9457] Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details
for HTTP APIs", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC9457, RFC 9457, July
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9457>.
[RFC9110] Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Semantics", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, BCP 97, RFC 9110,
June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, RFC 8446, August
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
8.2. Informational References
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, BCP 69, RFC 5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
[RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Domain Name Mapping", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, BCP 69,
RFC 5731, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.
[RFC5732] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Host Mapping", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732, BCP 69,
RFC 5732, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5732>.
[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Contact Mapping", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, BCP 69,
RFC 5733, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, RFC 7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7240] Snell, J., "Prefer Header for HTTP", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7240, RFC 7240, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7240>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, BCP 90,
RFC 8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC8288,
RFC 8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
[RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, RFC 6570, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, RFC 6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC6750] Jones, M. and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6750, RFC 6750, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6750>.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
[RFC7009] Dronia, S., Scurtescu, M., and T. Lodderstedt, "OAuth 2.0
Token Revocation", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC7009, RFC 7009,
August 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7009>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, RFC 7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC9082,
BCP 95, RFC 9082, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>.
[RFC6902] Bryan, P. and M. Nottingham, "JavaScript Object Notation
(JSON) Patch", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC6902, RFC 6902, April
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6902>.
[RFC9396] Lodderstedt, T., Richer, J., and B. Campbell, "OAuth 2.0
Rich Authorization Requests", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC9396,
RFC 9396, May 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9396>.
[RFC9205] Nottingham, M., "Building Protocols with HTTP", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9205, BCP 56, RFC 9205, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9205>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949,
BCP 94, RFC 8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9553] Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON
Representation of Contact Data", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9553, RFC 9553, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9553>.
[RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, RFC 7617, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, BCP 26, RFC 8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, RFC 5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs)", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, RFC 8615, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8615>.
[RFC9224] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP) Service", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9224, BCP 95, RFC 9224, March 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224>.
[RFC9901] Fett, D., Yasuda, K., and B. Campbell, "Selective
Disclosure for JSON Web Tokens", IETF,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9901, RFC 9901, November 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9901>.
[RFC9154] Gould, J. and R. Wilhelm, "Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP) Secure Authorization Information for
Transfer", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC9154, RFC 9154, December
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9154>.
[RFC9421] Sporny, M., Backman, A., and J. Richer, "HTTP Message
Signatures", IETF, DOI 10.17487/RFC9421, RFC 9421,
February 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9421>.
[SD-JWT] Terbu, O., Fett, D., and B. Campbell, "SD-JWT-based
Verifiable Credentials (SD-JWT VC)", November 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-
sd-jwt-vc-13>.
[RPPReq] Wullink, M. and P. Kowalik, "RESTful Provisioning Protocol
(RPP) - Requirements", December 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rpp-
requirements-03>.
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.
[SemVer] "Semantic Versioning 2.0.0", Misc SemVer 2.0.0,
<https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html>.
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft ietf-rpp-architecture February 2026
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures",
Doctoral Dissertation University of California, Irvine,
September 2000,
<http://roy.gbiv.com/pubs/dissertation/top.htm>.
[OpenAPI] "OpenAPI Specification", Misc OpenAPI,
<https://swagger.io/specification/>.
[W3C-VC] Sporny, M., Longley, D., Chadwick, D., Herman, I., Sporny,
M., Thibodeau, T., Herman, I., Cohen, G., and M. Jones,
"Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0", vc-data-model-
2.0, <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/>.
Authors' Addresses
P Kowalik
DENIC eG
Theodor-Stern-Kai 1
Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Email: pawel.kowalik@denic.de
URI: https://denic.de
M Wullink
SIDN Labs
Netherlands
Email: maarten.wullink@sidn.nl
URI: https://sidn.nl/
Kowalik & Wullink Expires 31 August 2026 [Page 42]