Internet Engineering Task Force                              T. Harrison
Internet-Draft                                             G. Michaelson
Intended status: Standards Track                                   APNIC
Expires: May 5, 2021                                    November 1, 2020


                       RDAP Redirect with Content
          draft-harrison-regext-rdap-redirect-with-content-00

Abstract

   The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) is used by Regional
   Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs) to
   provide access to their resource registration information.  When an
   RDAP service operator has delegated authority for a resource to a
   third party, the operator will configure its RDAP service to redirect
   requests for that resource to the third party.  However, the client
   may be interested in the resource registration data that the first
   service operator has in its own right, for various reasons.  This
   document defines a conformance code that a service operator can use
   to indicate that when redirecting requests, it will also include as
   the body of the response the RDAP object (if any) that it has in its
   own right for the requested resource.

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 May 5, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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



Harrison & Michaelson      Expires May 5, 2021                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         RDAP Redirect with Content          November 2020


   (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 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
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) [RFC7480] is used by
   Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs)
   to provide access to their resource registration information.  For a
   client, this typically involves following the bootstrap process
   [RFC7484] to determine the base URL for the query.  When the service
   operator for the base URL has delegated authority for a resource to a
   third party, the operator will configure its RDAP service to redirect
   requests accordingly.

   The client may also be interested in the registration data that the
   original service operator has, though.  For example:

      the original service operator's responses may be in conformance
      with an externally-defined RDAP profile, such that the client
      finds them easier or more useful to deal with than the responses
      provided by the delegated service operator;

      the original service operator's responses may provide useful
      information about larger delegations of resources to delegated
      service operators;

      where both service operators record information about the same
      delegation (e.g. the same specific IP network), the delegated
      operator may omit some information recorded by the original
      operator which is useful to the client; or



Harrison & Michaelson      Expires May 5, 2021                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         RDAP Redirect with Content          November 2020


      the delegated service may be unavailable for some reason, and the
      client may be content to rely on the data from the original
      service operator in that situation.

   It is already open to a service operator to return an RDAP object as
   the body of a redirect response: see section 6.4 of [RFC7231] and
   section 5.2 of [RFC7480], neither of which prohibits this behaviour.
   However, because this is unusual both in the RDAP context and more
   generally, this document defines the parameters of this behaviour, as
   well as a conformance code that can be used to signal that this
   behaviour is supported.

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Implementation

   An RDAP service operator that implements this specification MUST
   include an RDAP object ([RFC7483]) as the body of any non-permanent
   (HTTP 302, 303, or 307) redirect response that it returns, whenever
   it records data in its own right about the requested resource, or
   about a resource for which a response may be validly returned for the
   requested resource (for example, a less-specific IP network object).

   An RDAP service operator that implements this specification MUST
   include the string literal "redirect_with_content" in the
   rdapConformance array of a "/help" response, as well as any redirect
   response that includes an RDAP object as its body.  The service
   operator MAY include this string literal in other responses.

3.  Security Considerations

   [RFC7481] describes security requirements and considerations for RDAP
   generally.  This specification does not introduce any new
   requirements/considerations past those defined in that document.

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP
   Extensions Registry:

      Extension identifier: redirect_with_content




Harrison & Michaelson      Expires May 5, 2021                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         RDAP Redirect with Content          November 2020


      Registry operator: Any

      Published specification: This document.

      Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>

5.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7481]  Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
              Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.

   [RFC7483]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
              Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7480]  Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
              Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.

   [RFC7484]  Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
              (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>.



Harrison & Michaelson      Expires May 5, 2021                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         RDAP Redirect with Content          November 2020


Authors' Addresses

   Tom Harrison
   Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane, QLD  4101
   Australia

   Email: tomh@apnic.net


   George G. Michaelson
   Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre
   6 Cordelia St
   South Brisbane, QLD  4101
   Australia

   Email: ggm@apnic.net

































Harrison & Michaelson      Expires May 5, 2021                  [Page 5]