[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-weirds-using-http

Network Working Group                                          A. Newton
Internet-Draft                                                      ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track                              K. Ranjbar
Expires: November 11, 2012                                      RIPE NCC
                                                               A. Servin
                                                                  LACNIC
                                                             B. Ellacott
                                                                   APNIC
                                                           S. Hollenbeck
                                                                Verisign
                                                                S. Sheng
                                                                F. Arias
                                                                   ICANN
                                                                 N. Kong
                                                                   CNNIC
                                                               F. Obispo
                                                                     ISC
                                                            May 10, 2012


      Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet Registries
                 draft-designteam-weirds-using-http-00

Abstract

   This document describes the use of HTTP in Whois services using
   RESTful web methodologies.

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 November 11, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


   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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Design Intents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Queries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Accept Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Types of HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Positive Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Redirects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.3.  Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.4.  Malformed Queries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Use of JSON  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Use of XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Naming and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Common Error Response Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Common Datatypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     10.1. URIs vs IRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     10.2. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix A.  Areas of Improvement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17











Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


1.  Introduction

   Over time, several deficiencies have been noted in the Whois protocol
   as described in RFC 3912.  The following is a partial list:

      lack of standardized command structures

      lack of standardized output and error structures

      lack of support for internationalization (and therefore
      localization)

      lack of support for user identification, authentication, and
      access control

   This document describes the usage of HTTP for Internet registry Whois
   services running on RESTful web servers for the purposes of
   addressing the deficiencies as described above.  The goal of this
   document is to tie together the usage patterns of HTTP into a common
   profile applicable to the various types of Internet registries
   serving Whois data using RESTful styling.  By giving the various
   Internet registries a common behavior, a single client is better able
   to retreive data from Internet registries adhering to this behavior.

   The goal of this specification is to define a simple use of HTTP to
   deliver Whois information using RESTful patterns.  Where complexity
   may reside, it is the goal of this specification to place it upon the
   server and to keep the client as simple as possible.  In the
   vacubulary of computer programmers, it should be suffecient enough to
   write a client for this application in bash using commands such as
   wget or curl and other commonly available command line tools.

   This is the basic usage pattern for this protocol:

   1.  A client issues an HTTP query using GET.  As an example, a query
       for the network registration 192.168.0.0 might be
       http://example.com/ip/192.168.0.0.

   2.  If the receiving server has the information for the query, it
       examines the Accept header of the query and returns a 200
       response with a response entity appropriate for the requested
       format.

   3.  If the receiving server does not have the information for the
       query but does have knowledge of where the information can be
       found, it will return a response of 301 or 303 with the Redirect
       header containing an HTTP URL pointing to the information.  The
       client is expected to re-query using that HTTP URL.



Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


   4.  If the receiving server does not have the information being
       requested and does not have knowledge of where the information
       can be found, it should return a 404 response.

   It is important to note that it is not the intent of this document to
   redefine the meaning and semantics of HTTP.  The purpose of this
   document is to clarify the use of standard HTTP mechanisms for this
   application.











































Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


2.  Terminology

   As is noted in SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure
   [SAC-051], the term "Whois" is overloaded, often referring to a
   protocol, a service and data.  In accordance with [SAC-051], this
   document describes the base behavior for a Registration Data Access
   Protocol (RD-AP).  At present, there are two known types of RD-AP, a
   Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (DNRD-AP) and a Number
   Resource Registration Data Access Protocol (NRRD-AP).  Both the
   DNRD-AP and NRRD-AP are to be built upon this base behavior, the
   RD-AP.

   Note that other types of RD-AP may exist in the future.






































Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


3.  Design Intents

   There are a few design criteria this document attempts to support.

   First, each query is meant to return either zero or one result.  With
   the maximum upper bound being set to one, the issuance of redirects
   is simplified to the known document model used by HTTP [RFC2616].
   Should a result contain more than one result, some of which are
   better served by other servers, the redirection model becomes much
   more complicated.

   Second, multiple response formats are supported by this protocol.
   This document outlines the base usage of JSON and XML, but server
   operators may support other formats as they desire if appropriate.

   Third, HTTP offers a number of transport protocol mechanisms not
   described further in this document.  Operators are able to make use
   of these mechanisms according to their local policy, including cache
   control, authorization, compression, and redirection.  HTTP also
   benefits from widespread investment in scalability, reliability, and
   performance






























Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


4.  Queries

4.1.  Accept Header

   Clients SHOULD put the MIME type of the format they desire in the
   Accept header.  Servers SHOULD respond with an appropriate MIME type
   in the Accept header in accordance with the preference rules for the
   Accept header in HTTP [RFC2616].  However the use by clients of
   multiple MIME types in the Accept header is NOT RECOMMENDED.

   Clients may use a generic MIME type for the desired data format of
   the response, but servers MUST respond with the most appropriate MIME
   type.  In other words, a client may use "application\json" to express
   that it desires JSON or "application\weirds_blah_v1+json" to express
   that it desires WEIRDS BLAH version 1 in JSON.  The server MUST
   respond with "application\weirds_blah_v1+json".

4.2.  Parameters

   To overcome issues with misbehaving HTTP [RFC2616] cache
   infrastructure, clients may use the '__weirds__cachebust' query
   parameter with a random value of their choosing.  Servers MUST ignore
   this query parameter.

   The following is an example use of this parameter to retreive the
   abuse contacts associated with the most specific IP network with the
   address 192.0.2.0:


     /ip/192.0.2.0/operator/contacts/abuse?__weirds_cachebust=xyz123


   For all others, servers SHOULD ignore unknown query parameters.


















Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


5.  Types of HTTP Response

   This section describes the various types of responses a server may
   send to a client.  While no standard HTTP response code is forbidden
   in usage, at a minimum clients should understand the response codes
   described in this section.  It is expected that usage of response
   codes and types for this application not defined here will be
   described in subsequent documents.

5.1.  Positive Answers

   If a server has the information requested by the client and wishes to
   respond to the client with the information according to its policies,
   it should encode the answer in the format most appropriate according
   to the standard and defined rules for processing the HTTP Accept
   header, and return that answer in the body of a 200 response.

5.2.  Redirects

   If a server wishes to inform a client that the answer to a given
   query can be found elsewhere, it should return either a 301 or a 303
   reponse code and an HTTP URL in the Redirect header.  The client is
   expected to issue a subsequent query using the given URL without any
   processing of the URL.  In other words, the server is to hand back a
   complete URL and the client should not have to transform the URL to
   follow it.

   A server should use a 301 response to inform the client of a
   permanent move and a 303 repsonse otherwise.  For this application,
   such an example of a permentant move might be a TLD operator
   informing a client the information being sought can be found with
   another TLD operator (i.e. a query for the domain bar in foo.example
   is found at http://foo.example/domain/bar).

5.3.  Negative Answers

   If a server wishes to respond that it has no information regarding
   the query, it SHOULD return a 404 response code.  Optionally, it may
   include additional information regarding the lack of information as
   defined by Section 8.

5.4.  Malformed Queries

   If a server receives a query which it cannot understand, it SHOULD
   return a 503 response code.  Optionally, it may include additional
   information about why it does not understand the query as defined by
   Section 8.




Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


6.  Use of JSON

6.1.  Signaling

   Clients may signal their desire for JSON using the "application\json"
   mime type or a more application specific JSON mime type.

6.2.  Naming

   Clients processing JSON [RFC4627] responses SHOULD ignore values
   associated with unrecognized names.  Servers MAY insert values
   signified by names into the JSON responses which are not specified in
   this document.  Insertion of unspecified values into JSON responses
   SHOULD have names prefixed with a short identifier followed by an
   underscore followed by a meaningful name.

   For example, "handle" may be specified as the name of a value which
   is a string containing a registry unique identifier for a
   registration.  The registry of the Moon might desire to insert a
   value specific to their services denoting that a registration occured
   before or after the first moon landing.  The name for such a value
   might take the form "lunarNic_beforeOneSmallStep".

   JSON names SHOULD only consist of the alphabetic ASCII characters A
   through Z in both uppercase and lowercase, underscore characters, and
   SHOULD NOT begin with an underscore character or the characters
   "xml".  This restriction is a union of the Ruby programming language
   identifier syntax and the XML element name syntax and has two
   purposes.  First, client implementers using modern programming
   languages such as Ruby or Java may use libraries that automatically
   promote JSON values to first order object attributes or members (e.g.
   using the example above, the values may be referenced as
   network.handle or network.lunarNic_beforeOneSmallStep).  Second, a
   clean mapping between JSON and XML is easy to accomplish using the
   JSON representation.

   Clients processing JSON responses MUST be prepared for values
   specified in the registry response documents to be absent from a
   response as no JSON value listed is required to appear in the
   response.  In other words, servers MAY remove values as is needed by
   the policies of the server operator.










Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


7.  Use of XML

7.1.  Signaling

   Clients may signal their desire for XML using the "application\xml"
   mime type or a more application specific XML mime type.

7.2.  Naming and Structure

   Well-formed XML may be programmatically produced using the JSON
   encodings due to the JSON naming rules outlined in Section 6.2 and
   the following simple rules:

   1.  Where a JSON name is given, the corresponding XML element has the
       same name.

   2.  Where a JSON value is found, it is the content of the
       corresponding XML element.

   3.  Where a JSON value is an array, the XML element is to be repeated
       for each element of the array.

   4.  The root tag of the XML document is to be "response".

   Consider the following JSON response.


     {
       "startAddress" : "10.0.0.0",
       "endAddress" : "10.0.0.255",
       "remarks" : [
         "she sells seas shells",
         "down by the seashore"
       ],
       "uris" : [
         {
           "type" : "source",
           "uri" : "http://whois-rws.net/network/xxxx"
         },
         {
           "type" : "parent",
           "uri" : "http://whois-rws.net/network/yyyy"
         }
     }

                                 Figure 1





Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


   The corresponding XML would look like this:


     <response>
         <startAddress>10.0.0.0</startAddress>
         <endAddress>10.0.0.255</endAddress>
         <remarks>She sells sea shells</remarks>
         <remarks>down by the seashore</remarks>
         <uris>
             <type>source</type>
             <uri>http://whois-rws.net/network/xxxx</uri>
         </uris>
         <uris>
             <type>parent</type>
             <uri>http://whois-rws.net/network/yyyy</uri>
         </uris>
     </response>


   The rules for clients processing XML responses are the same as those
   with JSON: clients SHOULD ignore unrecognized XML elements, and
   servers MAY insert XML elements with tag names according to the
   naming rules in Section 6.2.  And as with JSON, clients MUST be
   prepared for XML elements specified in the registry response
   documents to be absent from a response as no XML element listed is
   required to appear in the response.

























Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


8.  Common Error Response Body

   As specified in Section 5, some non-answer responses may return
   entity bodies with information that could be more descriptive.

   The basic structure of that response is a data class containing an
   error code number (corresponding to the HTTP response code) followed
   by a string named "title" followed by an array of strings named
   "description".

   This is an example of the JSON version of the common response body.


     {
       "errorCode": 418
       "title": "No More Tacos",
       "description": [
         "We ran out of shells and sauce.",
         "Come back tomorrow." ]
     }


                                 Figure 2

   This is an example of the XML version of the common response body.


     <response>
         <errorCode>418</errorCode>
         <title>No More Tacos</title>
         <description>We ran out of shells and sauce.</description>
         <description>Come back tomorrow.</description>
     </response>


                                 Figure 3

   The MIME type for the JSON structure is
   "application\weirds_common_error_v1+json" and the MIME type for the
   XML document is "application\weirds_common_error_v1+xml".

   A client MAY simply use the HTTP response code as the server is not
   required to include error data in the response body.  However, if a
   client wishes to parse the error data, it SHOULD first check that the
   Accept header contains the appropriate MIME type.






Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


9.  Common Datatypes

   This section describes common data types found in Internet
   registries.  Unless otherwise stated by the response specification of
   an Internet registry using this specification as a basis, the data
   types can assume to be as follows:

   1.  IPv4 addresses - [RFC0791]

   2.  IPv6 addresses - [RFC5952]

   3.  country code - [ISO.3166.1988]

   4.  domain name - [RFC4343]

   5.  email address - [RFC5322]

   6.  date and time strings - [RFC3339]

































Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


10.  Internationalization Considerations

10.1.  URIs vs IRIs

   Clients MAY use IRIs as they see fit, but MUST transform them to URIs
   [RFC3986] for interaction with RD-AP servers.  RD-AP servers MUST use
   URIs in all responses, and clients MAY transform these URIs to IRIs.

10.2.  Character Encoding

   The default text encoding for JSON and XML responses in RD-AP is
   UTF-8, and all servers and clients MUST support UTF-8.  Servers and
   clients MAY optionally support other character encodings.






































Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


11.  Normative References

   [SAC-051]  Piscitello, D., Ed., "SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS
              Terminology and Structure", September 2011.

   [RFC4627]  Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
              JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
              Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, March 2005.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.

   [ISO.3166.1988]
              International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
              the representation of names of countries, 3rd edition",
              ISO Standard 3166, August 1988.

   [RFC5396]  Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of
              Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, December 2008.

   [RFC4343]  Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity
              Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              October 2008.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.









Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


Appendix A.  Areas of Improvement

   Things that need to be done to this draft.

   1.  authentication what?

   2.  clean up must should, ref 2119?

   3.  better language on data formats... it was just a rough start

   4.  IANA considerations

   5.  Security considerations?

   6.  Is there a privacy considerations things we have to do now?




































Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


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


   Kaveh Ranjbar
   RIPE Network Coordination Centre
   Singel 258
   Amsterdam  1016AB
   NL

   Email: kranjbar@ripe.net
   URI:   http://www.ripe.net


   Arturo L. Servin
   Latin American and Caribbean Internet Address Registry
   Rambla Republica de Mexico 6125
   Montevideo  11300
   UY

   Email: aservin@lacnic.net
   URI:   http://www.lacnic.net


   Byron J. Ellacott
   Asia Pacific Network Information Center
   6 Cordelia Street
   South Brisbane  QLD 4101
   Australia

   Email: bje@apnic.net
   URI:   http://www.apnic.net











Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


   Scott Hollenbeck
   Verisign Labs
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA  20190
   US

   Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
   URI:   http://www.verisignlabs.com/


   Steve Sheng
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
   Marina del Rey, CA  90292
   United States of America

   Phone: +1.310.823.9358
   Email: steve.sheng@icann.org


   Francisco Arias
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
   4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
   Marina del Rey, CA  90292
   United States of America

   Phone: +1.310.823.9358
   Email: francisco.arias@icann.org


   Ning Kong
   China Internet Network Information Center
   4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun, Haidian District
   Beijing  100190
   China

   Phone: +86 10 5881 3147
   Email: nkong@cnnic.cn













Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           HTTP for RESTful Whois                 May 2012


   Francisco Obispo
   Internet Systems Consortium
   950 Charter St
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   United States of America

   Phone: +1.650.423.1374
   Email: fobispo@isc.org











































Newton, et al.          Expires November 11, 2012              [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/