Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck
Expires: February 26, 2015 Verisign Labs
August 25, 2014
Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-13
Abstract
This document describes uniform patterns to construct HTTP URLs that
may be used to retrieve registration information from registries
(including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name
Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 26, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
Table of Contents
1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 6
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 7
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Query Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
IDN: Internationalized Domain Name
IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
DNR: Domain Name Registry
NFC: Unicode Normalization Form C
NFKC: Unicode Normalization Form KC
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
REST: Representational State Transfer State Transfer. The term
was first described in a doctoral dissertation [REST].
RESTful: An adjective that describes a service using HTTP and the
principles of REST.
RIR: Regional Internet Registry
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
2. Introduction
This document describes a specification for querying registration
data using a RESTful web service and uniform query patterns. The
service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
[RFC7230].
The protocol described in this specification is intended to address
deficiencies with the WHOIS protocol [RFC3912] that have been
identified over time, including:
o Lack of standardized command structures,
o lack of standardized output and error structures,
o lack of support for internationalization and localization, and
o lack of support for user identification, authentication, and
access control.
The patterns described in this document purposefully do not encompass
all of the methods employed in the WHOIS and RESTful web services of
all of the RIRs and DNRs. The intent of the patterns described here
are to enable queries of:
o networks by IP address,
o autonomous system numbers by number,
o reverse DNS meta-data by domain,
o name servers by name,
o registrars by name, and
o entities (such as contacts) by identifier.
It is envisioned that each registry will continue to maintain
NICNAME/WHOIS and/or RESTful web services specific to their needs and
those of their constituencies, and the information retrieved through
the patterns described here may reference such services.
Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for
additional query types. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is
described in Section 5 to accommodate custom extensions that will not
interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns
defined in future IETF standards.
WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore URL
[RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to
the HTTP [RFC7231] GET and HEAD methods.
This document does not describe the results or entities returned from
issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET. JSON [RFC7159] result
formatting and processing is described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
Additionally, resource management, provisioning and update functions
are out of scope for this document. Registries have various and
divergent methods covering these functions, and it is unlikely a
uniform approach for these functions will ever be possible.
HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients and for
clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization schemes may
be built) so such mechanisms are not described in this document.
Policy, provisioning, and processing of authentication and
authorization are out-of-scope for this document as deployments will
have to make choices based on local criteria. Specified
authentication mechanisms MUST use HTTP.
3. Path Segment Specification
The base URLs used to construct RDAP queries are maintained in an
IANA registry described in [I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]. Queries are
formed by retrieving the appropriate base URL from the registry and
appending a path segment specified in either Section 3.1 or
Section 3.2. Generally, a registry or other service provider will
provide a base URL that identifies the protocol, host and port, and
this will be used as a base URL that the complete URL is resolved
against, as per Section 5 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. For example, if the
base URL is "http://example.com/rdap/", all RDAP query URLs will
begin with "http://example.com/rdap/".
The bootstrap registry does not contain information for query objects
that are not part of a global namespace, including entities and help.
A base URL for an associated object is required to construct a
complete query.
For entities: Retrieve a base URL for the service (domain, address,
etc.) associated with a given entity. The query URL is constructed
by concatenating the base URL to the entity path segment specified in
either Section 3.1.5 or Section 3.2.3.
For help: Retrieve a base URL for any service (domain, address, etc.)
for which additional information is required. The query URL is
constructed by concatenating the base URL to the help path segment
specified in either Section 3.1.6.
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification
The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are:
o 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced
using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
o 'autnum': Used to identify autonomous system registrations and
associated data referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system
number.
o 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR)
information and associated data referenced using a fully-qualified
domain name.
o 'nameserver': Used to identify a name server information query
using a host name.
o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query using a
string identifier.
3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification
Syntax: ip/<IP address> or ip/<CIDR prefix>/<CIDR length>
Queries for information about IP networks are of the form /ip/XXX/...
or /ip/XXX/YY/... where the path segment following 'ip' is either an
IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e. XXX) or an IPv4 or
IPv6 CIDR [RFC4632] notation address block (i.e. XXX/YY).
Semantically, the simpler form using the address can be thought of as
a CIDR block with a bitmask length of 32 for IPv4 and a bitmask
length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall
within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy of networks, therefore
this query targets the "most-specific" or smallest IP network which
completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of IP networks.
The IPv4 and IPv6 address formats supported in this query are
described in section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986], as IPv4address and
IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format
[RFC4291] can be used, compressed or not compressed. The restricted
rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are
not mandatory. However, the zone id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in
this context and therefore prohibited.
For example, the following URL would be used to find information for
the most specific network containing 192.0.2.0:
http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0
The following URL would be used to find information for the most
specific network containing 192.0.2.0/24:
http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0/24
The following URL would be used to find information for the most
specific network containing 2001:db8::0:
http://example.com/rdap/ip/2001:db8::0
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification
Syntax: autnum/<autonomous system number>
Queries for information regarding autonomous system number
registrations are of the form /autnum/XXX/... where XXX is an AS
Plain autonomous system number [RFC5396]. In some registries,
registration of autonomous system numbers is done on an individual
number basis, while other registries may register blocks of
autonomous system numbers. The semantics of this query are such that
if a number falls within a range of registered blocks, the target of
the query is the block registration, and that individual number
registrations are considered a block of numbers with a size of 1.
For example, the following URL would be used to find information
describing autonomous system number 12 (a number within a range of
registered blocks):
http://example.com/rdap/autnum/12
The following URL would be used to find information describing 4-byte
autonomous system number 65538:
http://example.com/rdap/autnum/65538
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification
Syntax: domain/<domain name>
Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX/...,
where XXXX is a fully-qualified (relative to the root) domain name
[RFC1594] in either the in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or
a fully-qualified domain name in a zone administered by the server
operator (for DNRs). Internationalized domain names represented in
either A-label or U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain
names. IDNs SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and
U-labels; that is, all internationalized labels in an IDN SHOULD be
either A-labels or U-labels.
If the client sends the server an IDN in U-label format, servers that
support IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform
IDNA processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server
should perform an exact match lookup using the A-label.
The following URL would be used to find information describing the
zone serving the network 192.0.2/24:
http://example.com/rdap/domain/2.0.192.in-addr.arpa
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
The following URL would be used to find information describing the
zone serving the network 2001:db8:1::/48:
http://example.com/rdap/domain/1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
The following URL would be used to find information for the
blah.example.com domain name:
http://example.com/rdap/domain/blah.example.com
The following URL would be used to find information for the
xn--fo-5ja.example IDN:
http://example.com/rdap/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example
3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification
Syntax: nameserver/<name server name>
The <name server name> parameter represents a fully qualified name as
specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123].
Internationalized names represented in either A-label or U-label
format [RFC5890] are also valid name server names. IDNs SHOULD NOT
be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels; that is, all
internationalized labels in an IDN SHOULD be either A-labels or
U-labels.
If the client sends the server an IDN in U-label format, servers that
support IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform
IDNA processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server
should perform an exact match lookup using the A-label.
The following URL would be used to find information for the
ns1.example.com name server:
http://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.example.com
The following URL would be used to find information for the
ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example name server:
http://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification
Syntax: entity/<handle>
The <handle> parameter represents an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) identifier. For example, for some DNRs
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
contact identifiers are specified in RFC 5730 [RFC5730] and RFC 5733
[RFC5733].
The following URL would be used to find information for the entity
associated with handle XXXX:
http://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification
Syntax: help
The help path segment can be used to request helpful information
(command syntax, terms of service, privacy policy, rate limiting
policy, supported authentication methods, supported extensions,
technical support contact, etc.) from an RDAP server. The response
to "help" should provide basic information that a client needs to
successfully use the service. The following URL would be used to
return "help" information:
http://example.com/rdap/help
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification
A simple search to determine if an object exists (or not) without
returning RDAP-encoded results can be performed using the HTTP HEAD
method as described in Section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Detailed results can be retrieved using the path segments specified
here.
The resource type path segments for search are:
o 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using
a pattern to match a fully-qualified domain name.
o 'nameservers': Used to identify a name server information search
using a pattern to match a host name.
o 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a
pattern to match a string identifier.
RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the
plural form of the object being searched for, a forward slash
character ('/', ASCII value 0x002F), and an HTTP query string. The
HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the question
mark character ('?', ASCII value 0x003F), the JSON object value
associated with the object being searched for, the equal sign
character ('=', ASCII value 0x003D), and the search pattern. For the
domain and entity objects described in this document the plural
object forms are "domains" and "entities".
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
3.2.1. Domain Search
Syntax: domains?name=<domain search pattern>
Syntax: domains?nsLdhName=<domain search pattern>
Syntax: domains?nsIp=<domain search pattern>
Searches for domain information by name are specified using this
form:
/domains?name=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing a domain name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server
operator of a DNR. The following URL would be used to find DNR
information for domain names matching the "example*.com" pattern:
http://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in U-label format [RFC5890] can
also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these
names are of the form /domains?name=XXXX, where XXXX is a search
pattern representing a domain name in U-label format [RFC5890].
Searches for domain information by name server name are specified
using this form:
/domains?nsLdhName=YYYY
YYYY is a search pattern representing a host name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server
operator of a DNR. The following URL would be used to search for
domains delegated to name servers matching the "ns1.example*.com"
pattern:
http://example.com/rdap/domains?nsLdhName=ns1.example*.com
Searches for domain information by name server IP address are
specified using this form:
/domains?nsIp=ZZZZ
ZZZZ is a search pattern representing an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6
[RFC5952] address. The following URL would be used to search for
domains that have been delegated to name servers that resolve to the
"192.0.2.0" address:
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
http://example.com/rdap/domains?nsIp=192.0.2.0
3.2.2. Name Server Search
Syntax: nameservers?name=<name server search pattern>
Syntax: nameservers?ip=<name server search pattern>
Searches for name server information by name server name are
specified using this form:
/nameservers?name=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing a host name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server
operator of a DNR. The following URL would be used to find DNR
information for name server names matching the "ns1.example*.com"
pattern:
http://example.com/rdap/nameservers?name=ns1.example*.com
Internationalized name server names in U-label format [RFC5890] can
also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these
names are of the form /nameservers?name=XXXX, where XXXX is a search
pattern representing a name server name in U-label format [RFC5890].
Searches for name server information by name server IP address are
specified using this form:
/nameservers?ip=YYYY
YYYY is a search pattern representing an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6
[RFC5952] address. The following URL would be used to search for
name server names that resolve to the "192.0.2.0" address:
http://example.com/rdap/nameservers?ip=192.0.2.0
3.2.3. Entity Search
Syntax: entities?fn=<entity name search pattern>
Syntax: entities?handle=<entity handle search pattern>
Searches for entity information by name are specified using this
form:
/entities?fn=XXXX
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
where XXXX is a search pattern representing an entity name as
specified in Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. The
following URL would be used to find information for entity names
matching the "Bobby Joe*" pattern.
http://example.com/rdap/entities?fn=Bobby%20Joe*
Searches for entity information by handle are specified using this
form:
/entities?handle=XXXX
where XXXX is a search pattern representing an entity handle as
specified in Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. The
following URL would be used to find information for entity names
matching the "CID-40*" pattern.
http://example.com/rdap/entities?handle=CID-40*
URLs MUST be properly encoded according to the rules of [RFC3986].
In the example above, "Bobby Joe*" is encoded to "Bobby%20Joe*".
4. Query Processing
Servers indicate the success or failure of query processing by
returning an appropriate HTTP response code to the client. Response
codes not specifically identified in this document are described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', ASCII value 0x002A)
character to match zero or more trailing characters. A character
string representing multiple domain name labels MAY be concatenated
to the end of the search pattern to limit the scope of the search.
For example, the search pattern "exam*" will match "example.com" and
"example.net". The search pattern "exam*.com" will match
"example.com". Note that these search patterns include implied
beginning and end of string regular expression markers, and the
"example*.com" search would be translated into a POSIX regular
expression as "^example.*\.com$". Additional pattern matching
processing is beyond the scope of this specification.
If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request
because it does not support a particular style of partial match
searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 [RFC4918] error. When
returning a 422 error, the server MAY also return an error response
body as specified in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if
the requested media type is one that is specified in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
Partial matching is not feasible across combinations of Unicode
characters because Unicode characters can be combined with another
Unicode character or characters. Servers SHOULD NOT partially match
combinations of Unicode characters where a Unicode character may be
legally combined with another Unicode character or characters.
Clients should avoid submitting a partial match search of Unicode
characters where a Unicode character may be legally combined with
another Unicode character or characters. Partial match searches with
incomplete combinations of characters where a character must be
combined with another character or characters are invalid. Partial
match searches with characters that may be combined with another
character or characters are to be considered non-combined characters
(that is, if character x may be combined with character y but
character y is not submitted in the search string then character x is
a complete character and no combinations of character x are to be
searched).
Servers can expect to receive search patterns from clients that
contain character strings encoded in different forms supported by
HTTP. It is entirely possible to apply filters and normalization
rules to search patterns prior to making character comparisons, but
this type of processing is more typically needed to determine the
validity of registered strings than to match patterns.
An RDAP client submitting a query string containing non-US-ASCII
characters converts such strings into Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. It
then performs any local case mapping deemed necessary. Strings are
normalized using Normalization Form C (NFC, [Unicode-UAX15]); note
that clients might not be able to do this reliably.
An RDAP server treats each query string as Unicode in UTF-8 encoding.
If a string is not valid UTF-8, the server can immediately stop
processing the query and return an HTTP 400 error response code.
When processing queries, there is a difference in handling DNS names,
including those including putative U-labels, and everything else.
DNS names are treated according to the DNS matching rules as
described in Section 3.1 of RFC 1035 [RFC1035] for NR-LDH labels and
the matching rules described in Section 5.4 of RFC 5891 [RFC5891] for
U-labels. Matching of DNS names proceeds one label at a time,
because it is possible for a combination of U-labels and NR-LDH
labels to be found in a single domain or host name. The
determination of whether a label is a U-label or an NR-LDH label is
based on whether the label contains any characters outside of the US-
ASCII letters, digits, or hyphen (the so-called LDH rule).
For everything else, servers map fullwidth and halfwidth characters
to their decomposition equivalents. Servers convert strings to the
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
same coded character set of the target data that is to be looked up
or searched and each string is normalized using the same
normalization that was used on the target data. In general, storage
of strings as Unicode is RECOMMENDED. For the purposes of
comparison, Normalization Form KC (NFKC, [Unicode-UAX15]) with case
folding is used to maximize predictability and the number of matches.
Note the use of case-folded NFKC as opposed to NFC in this case.
Conceptually, a name-record in a database may include a link to an
associated name-record, which may include a link to another such
record, and so on. If an implementation is to return more than one
name-record in response to a query, information from the records
thereby identified is returned.
Note that this model includes arrangements for associated names,
including those that are linked by policy mechanisms and names bound
together for some other purposes. Note also that returning
information that was not explicitly selected by an exact-match
lookup, including additional names that match a relatively fuzzy
search as well as lists of names that are linked together, may cause
privacy issues.
5. Extensibility
This document describes path segment specifications for a limited
number of objects commonly registered in both RIRs and DNRs. It does
not attempt to describe path segments for all of the objects
registered in all registries. Custom path segments can be created
for objects not specified here using the process described in
Section 6 of "HTTP usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP)" [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a
unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For
example, a custom entity path segment could be created by prefixing
"entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity". Servers MUST
return an appropriate failure status code for a request with an
unrecognized path segment.
6. Internationalization Considerations
There is value in supporting the ability to submit either a U-label
(Unicode form of an IDN label) or an A-label (ASCII form of an IDN
label) as a query argument to an RDAP service. Clients capable of
processing non-ASCII characters may prefer a U-label since this is
more visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but
clients using programmatic interfaces might find it easier to submit
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
and display A-labels if they are unable to input U-labels with their
keyboard configuration. Both query forms are acceptable.
Internationalized domain and name server names can contain character
variants and variant labels as described in RFC 4290 [RFC4290].
Clients that support queries for internationalized domain and name
server names MUST accept service provider responses that describe
variants as specified in "JSON Responses for the Registration Data
Access Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not specify any IANA actions.
8. Security Considerations
Security services for the operations specified in this document are
described in "Security Services for the Registration Data Access
Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec].
Search functionality typically requires more server resources (such
as memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to basic
lookup functionality. This increases the risk of server resource
exhaustion and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. This risk
can be mitigated by developing and implementing controls to restrict
search functionality to identified and authorized clients. If those
clients behave badly, their search privileges can be suspended or
revoked. Rate limiting as described in Section 5.5 of "HTTP usage in
the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] can also be used to control the rate of
received search requests. Server operators can also reduce their
risk by restricting the amount of information returned in response to
a search request.
Search functionality also increases the privacy risk of disclosing
object relationships that might not otherwise be obvious. For
example, a search that returns IDN variants [RFC6927] that do not
explicitly match a client-provided search pattern can disclose
information about registered domain names that might not be otherwise
available. Implementers need to consider the policy and privacy
implications of returning information that was not explicitly
requested.
9. Acknowledgements
This document is derived from original work on RIR query formats
developed by Byron J. Ellacott of APNIC, Arturo L. Servin of
LACNIC, Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
Additionally, this document incorporates DNR query formats originally
described by Francisco Arias and Steve Sheng of ICANN and Scott
Hollenbeck of Verisign Labs.
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to this document: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet,
Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Behnam Esfahbod, John Klensin,
Edward Lewis, John Levine, Mark Nottingham, and Andrew Sullivan.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]
Blanchet, M. and G. Leclanche, "Finding the Authoritative
Registration Data (RDAP) Service", draft-ietf-weirds-
bootstrap-04 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-json-response-08 (work in progress), August 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]
Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol", draft-ietf-weirds-
rdap-sec-08 (work in progress), August 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-using-http-10 (work in progress), August 2014.
[RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet
host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC1166] Kirkpatrick, S., Stahl, M., and M. Recker, "Internet
numbers", RFC 1166, July 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC4290] Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290, December
2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC4918] Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007.
[RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of
Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, December 2008.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.
[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, August 2009.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
2014.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
[Unicode-UAX15]
The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2013,
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
10.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the
Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet
Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002.
[RFC1594] Marine, A., Reynolds, J., and G. Malkin, "FYI on Questions
and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked "New Internet
User" Questions", RFC 1594, March 1994.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004.
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
March 2005.
[RFC6927] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Variants in Second-Level Names
Registered in Top-Level Domains", RFC 6927, May 2013.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
Appendix A. Change Log
Initial -00: Adopted as working group document.
-01: Added "Conventions Used in This Document" section. Added
normative reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec and some
wrapping text in the Security Considerations section.
-02: Removed "unified" from the title. Rewrote the last paragraph
of section 2. Edited the first paragraph of section 3 to more
clearly note that only one path segment is provided. Added
"bitmask" to "length" in section 3.1. Changed "lowest IP network"
to "smallest IP network" in section 3.1. Added "asplain" to the
description of autonomous system numbers in section 3.2. Minor
change from "semantics is" to "semantics are" in section 3.2.
Changed the last sentence in section 4 to more clearly specify
error response behavior. Added acknowledgements. Added a
paragraph in the introduction regarding future IETF standards and
extensibility.
-03: Changed 'query' to 'lookup' in document title to better
describe the 'exact match lookup' purpose of this document.
Included a multitude of minor additions and clarifications
provided by Marc Blanchet and Jean-Philippe Dionne. Modified the
domain and name server sections to include support for IDN
U-labels.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format August 2014
-04: Updated the domain and name server sections to use .example IDN
U-labels. Added text to note that mixed IDN labels SHOULD NOT be
used. Fixed broken sentences in Section 6.
-05: Added "help" path segment.
-06: Added search text and removed or edited old search text.
-07: Fixed query parameter typo by replacing "/?" with "?". Changed
"asplain" to "AS Plain". Added entity search by handle.
Corrected section references. Updated IDN search text.
-08: Revised URI formats and added IANA instructions to create a
registry entry for the "rdap" well-known prefix. Revised search
processing text and added search privacy consideration.
Synchronized examples with response draft.
-09: More search processing and URI prefix updates. Updated fully-
qualified domain name reference.
-10: Added name server search by IP address.
-11: Replaced reference to RFC 4627 with reference to RFC 7159.
Replaced .well-known with bootstrap-defined prefix. Replaced
references to RFC 2616 with references to RFC 7231 and draft-ietf-
httpbis-http2, adding a note to make it clear that 2616 is an
acceptable reference if http2 isn't ready when needed.
-12: IDN label processing clarification. Added domain search by
name server name and name server IP address. Minor text editing
for consistency in the search sections. Replaced reference to
draft-ietf-httpbis-http2 with a reference to RFC 7230 and removed
reference note.
-13: Added HTTP HEAD reference in Section 3.2.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew Lee Newton
American Registry for Internet Numbers
3635 Concorde Parkway
Chantilly, VA 20151
US
Email: andy@arin.net
URI: http://www.arin.net
Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
US
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires February 26, 2015 [Page 18]
