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

Versions: 00

Internet Engineering Task Force                              T. Harrison
Internet-Draft                                             G. Michaelson
Intended status: Standards Track                                   APNIC
Expires: August 5, 2019                                        A. Newton
                                                                    ARIN
                                                        February 1, 2019


                     RDAP Mirroring Protocol (RMP)
                draft-harrison-regext-rdap-mirroring-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.  While
   most clients can retrieve the information they need on an ad hoc
   basis from the public services maintained by each registry, there are
   instances where local copies of those remote data sources need to be
   maintained, for various reasons (e.g.  performance requirements).
   This document defines a protocol for transferring bulk RDAP response
   data and for keeping a local copy of that data up to date.

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 August 5, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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



Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  RDAP Mirroring Protocol Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  File Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Update Notification File  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.2.  Snapshot File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.3.  Delta File  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  RDAP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.4.  Serial Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.5.  Server Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.5.1.  Initialization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.5.2.  Publishing Updates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.5.3.  Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.6.  Client Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.6.1.  Processing the Update Notification File . . . . . . .  11
         2.6.1.1.  Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
         2.6.1.2.  Subsequent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   3.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

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, constructing an
   RDAP request, sending it, and then processing the response.

   This mode of operation is appropriate for many use cases.  However,
   some clients may need local access to the whole data set:




Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


      their performance requirements may be such that the time required
      for sending/receiving HTTP requests to arbitrary remote servers is
      not acceptable;

      they may be conducting analysis of the data set as a whole; or

      they may be providing access to the data set in their own right,
      as an alternative to redirecting to the authoritative source for
      the data.

   This document defines a protocol that can be used by a client to
   retrieve a local copy of a remote RDAP data set, as well as to
   maintain that local copy as further remote updates occur.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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].

2.  RDAP Mirroring Protocol Implementation

2.1.  Overview

   A registry that wants to make use of this protocol publishes an
   Update Notification File to a specified URL.  That file in turn links
   to a Snapshot File and a series of Delta Files.  The Snapshot File
   contains all of the registry's RDAP state as at a given point in
   time.  The Delta Files contain changes that have been made to the
   registry's RDAP state since the Snapshot File was generated.

   As further changes are made to the registry's RDAP state, the
   registry publishes new Delta Files, amends the Update Notification
   File to include links to the new Delta Files, and then republishes
   the Update Notification File.  Periodically, the registry regenerates
   and republishes the Snapshot File, which in turn allows for older
   Delta Files to be removed from the Update Notification File.

   All files in the protocol are signed by the server using JSON Web
   Signature (JWS) [RFC7515].  The JSON Web Key (JWK) [RFC7517] used by
   the server to sign the files is distributed out-of-band.

   A client that wants to make use of this protocol needs to learn the
   server's Update Notification File URL and JSON Web Key out-of-band.
   Once these are known, the client retrieves the Update Notification
   File, validates its signature, and follows the links in it to
   retrieve the Snapshot File and Delta Files.  It validates the
   signatures on these files, and then uses them to initialize its local



Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


   state.  It then records the serial number of the most-recently-issued
   Delta File, or of the Snapshot File if no Delta Files are present.

   The client will then periodically retrieve the Update Notification
   File, determine the Delta Files that have been added since it was
   last retrieved by the client, retrieve those Delta Files, and update
   its local state accordingly.

   A server may opt not to publish a Snapshot File in the Update
   Notification File.  Such servers will only publish Delta Files in
   their Update Notification File, and must distribute the Snapshot File
   out-of-band.

2.2.  File Definitions

2.2.1.  Update Notification File

   Example Update Notification File:


   {
       "version": 1,
       "refresh": 3600,
       "snapshot": { "uri": "https://example.com/1/snapshot.json",
                     "serial": 1 },
       "deltas": [
           { "uri": "https://example.com/2/delta.json",
             "serial": 2 },
           { "uri": "https://example.com/3/delta.json",
             "serial": 3 },
       ]
   }


   The following validation rules MUST be observed when creating or
   parsing Update Notification Files:

      Update Notification Files MUST be well-formed JSON [RFC8259].

      The "version" attribute in the root element MUST be present, with
      a value of "1".

      A "refresh" attribute MAY be present.  If it is present, it is an
      integer representing how long the client should wait (in seconds)
      after retrieving the Update Notification File before attempting to
      retrieve it again.





Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


      A "snapshot" attribute containing a link to a Snapshot File MAY be
      present.

      A "deltas" attribute containing an array of links to Delta Files
      MUST be present.  If no Delta Files have been published by the
      server, this array will be empty.

      The Delta File entries in the "deltas" attribute MUST be in serial
      number order, and the serial numbers MUST form a contiguous
      sequence.

      If a Snapshot File is included, its serial number MUST either be
      equal to that of one of the Delta Files, or one less than the
      smallest Delta File serial number.

2.2.2.  Snapshot File

   Example Snapshot File:


   {
       "version": 1,
       "serial": 3,
       "defaults": { "port43": "whois.example.com",
                     ... },
       "objects": [
           { "id": "https://example.org/I1",
             "object": { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0" ],
                         "objectClassName": "ip network",
                         ... } },
           { "id": "https://example.org/D2",
             "object": { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0" ],
                         "objectClassName": "domain",
                         ... } },
           ...
       ]
   }


   The following validation rules MUST be observed when creating or
   parsing Snapshot Files:

      Snapshot Files MUST be well-formed JSON [RFC8259].

      The "version" attribute in the root element MUST be present, with
      a value of "1".





Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


      The "serial" attribute in the root element MUST be present, with a
      value that is an unsigned 32-bit integer.

      An "objects" attribute containing an array of RDAP object (see
      [RFC7483]) and identifier pairs MUST be present.  If no RDAP
      objects have been published by the server, this array will be
      empty.

      A "defaults" attribute MAY be present.  For each object received
      from the server, the client should treat the object as also having
      each attribute from the "defaults" attribute, except where the
      object already contains an attribute with that name.  This applies
      to objects received both before and after the Snapshot File is
      processed.

2.2.3.  Delta File

   Example Delta File:


   {
       "version": 1,
       "serial": 4,
       "defaults": { "port43": "whois-2.example.org",
                     ... },
       "removed_objects": [ "1" ],
       "added_or_updated_objects": [
           { "id": "https://example.org/I3",
             "object": { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0" ],
                         "objectClassName": "ip network",
                         ... } },
           { "id": "https://example.org/D4",
             "object": { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0" ],
                         "objectClassName": "domain",
                         ... } },
           ...
       ]
   }


   The following validation rules MUST be observed when creating or
   parsing Delta Files:

      Snapshot Files MUST be well-formed JSON [RFC8259].

      The "version" attribute in the root element MUST be present, with
      a value of "1".




Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


      The "serial" attribute in the root element MUST be present, with a
      value that is an unsigned 32-bit integer.

      A "defaults" attribute MAY be present.  For each object received
      from the server, the client should treat the object as also having
      each attribute from the "defaults" attribute, except where the
      object already contains an attribute with that name.  This applies
      to objects received both before and after the Delta File is
      processed.

      A "removed_objects" attribute containing an array of RDAP object
      identifiers MUST be present.  If no RDAP objects have been removed
      since the previous Delta File was generated by the server, this
      array will be empty.

      An "added_or_updated_objects" attribute containing an array of
      RDAP object (see [RFC7483]) and identifier pairs MUST be present.
      If no RDAP objects have been added or updated since the previous
      Delta File was generated by the server, this array will be empty.

2.3.  RDAP Objects

   The base RDAP object definitions from [RFC7483] do not contain any
   mandatory attributes.  For the purposes of this protocol, each RDAP
   object MUST include an "rdapConformance" attribute, so that a client
   can determine whether the object is one that it is able to process.

   Each RDAP object is paired with an identifier (the "id" attribute in
   the parent object).  The "id" attribute value MUST be a URI
   ([RFC3986]).  Its value uniquely identifies an RDAP object within the
   data set, so as to support internal linking and for subsequent
   removal of the object by a Delta File.

   In each RDAP object, each link to an RDAP object that is a member of
   the data set for which the server is providing mirroring MUST have as
   the value of its "href" attribute the identifier for that object
   (i.e.  the value of the "id" attribute from the target's parent
   object).  This includes self-references (i.e.  links with the "self"
   relation type).

   If a server includes a link object with the "self" relation type with
   each of its RDAP objects, then using the value of the "href"
   attribute of that link object as the identifier for each RDAP object
   is RECOMMENDED.

   For example, a Delta File containing an entity object, along with an
   IP network object that links to it:




Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


   {
       "version": 1,
       "serial": 5,
       "removed_objects": [],
       "added_or_updated_objects": [
           { "id": "https://example.org/E5",
             "object": { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0" ],
                         "objectClassName": "entity",
                         "handle": "E5",
                         "links": [
                             { "rel": "self",
                               "href": "https://example.org/E5",
                               ... }
                         ],
                         ... } },
           { "id": "https://example.org/I6",
             "object": { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0" ],
                         "objectClassName": "ip network",
                         "links": [
                             { "rel": "self",
                               "href": "https://example.org/I6",
                               ... }
                         ],
                         "entities": [
                             { "handle": "E5",
                               "links": [
                                   { "rel": "self",
                                     "href": "https://example.org/E5",
                                     ... }
                               ],
                               ... }
                         ],
                         ... } }
           ...
       ]
   }


   A server MAY omit from an object data that it returns as part of its
   corresponding public service response, when that data can be
   determined by reference to another object in the data set.  In such
   cases, the server MUST include a "links" attribute containing a link
   object with a "self" relation, so that the target object can be
   resolved by the client.







Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


2.4.  Serial Numbers

   Serial numbers in the files defined in this protocol are unsigned
   32-bit integers.  For the purposes of this protocol, the serial
   number arithmetic defined in [RFC1982] applies.

2.5.  Server Use

2.5.1.  Initialization

   If a server is publishing a Snapshot File via the Update Notification
   File, then initialization is like so:

      generate an initial Snapshot File, with a serial number selected
      by the server;

      sign the Snapshot File using JWS, and publish the result using JWS
      Compact Serialization at a URL that is unique to this serial
      number;

      generate an initial Update Notification File, with a serial number
      equal to that of the Snapshot File, and containing a link to the
      Snapshot File; and

      sign the Update Notification File using JWS, and publish the
      result using JWS Compact Serialization.

   To avoid doubt, any RDAP object that is part of the data set for
   which the server is providing mirroring, as well as being the target
   of a link contained within another RDAP object, MUST be present
   within the Snapshot File.

   If a server is not publishing a Snapshot File via the Update
   Notification File, then initialization is like so:

      generate an initial Snapshot File, with a serial number selected
      by the server;

      sign the Snapshot File using JWS, and distribute the result to
      clients out-of-band using JWS Compact Serialization;

      generate an initial Update Notification File, containing no
      Snapshot File link or Delta File links, with a serial number equal
      to that of the Snapshot File (i.e.  the one that will be
      distributed out-of-band); and

      sign the Update Notification File using JWS, and publish the
      result using JWS Compact Serialization.



Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


2.5.2.  Publishing Updates

   The server periodically publishes changes that have been made to its
   RDAP state as Delta Files.  The timing and frequency of publication
   is a local policy matter for the server.  The process is like so:

      if a Delta File has been generated previously: generate a new
      Delta File, containing the changes that have been made to the RDAP
      state since the last Delta File was generated, with a serial
      number that is one greater than the serial number of the last
      Delta File;

      if no Delta File has been generated previously: generate a new
      Delta File, containing the changes that have been made to the RDAP
      state since the last Snapshot File was generated, with a serial
      number that is one greater than the serial number of the last
      Snapshot File;

      sign the Delta File using JWS, and publish the result using JWS
      Compact Serialization at a URL that is unique to its serial
      number;

      take the currently-published Update Notification File, increment
      its serial number, add a link to the new Delta File, and
      optionally perform the steps described in the "Consolidation"
      section below; and

      sign the Update Notification File using JWS, and publish the
      result using JWS Compact Serialization.

   Delta Files MUST NOT remove an RDAP object that would cause a
   relative reference link within the client's local state to become
   unresolvable.

2.5.3.  Consolidation

   On publishing an update, the server may optionally consolidate the
   Snapshot File and Delta Files that it is publishing.  The process is
   like so:

      if the server is publishing a Snapshot File: generate a new
      Snapshot File based on the server's current state with a serial
      number equal to that of the new Delta File, publish the new
      Snapshot File, and replace the link in the Update Notification
      File to the previous Snapshot File with a link to the new Snapshot
      File; and





Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


      remove Delta Files from the Update Notification File that have
      become stale.

   Whether a given Delta File is 'stale' is a local policy matter for
   the server.

2.6.  Client Use

2.6.1.  Processing the Update Notification File

2.6.1.1.  Initial

   The client downloads the signed Update Notification File using the
   URL provided by the server (out-of-band) and validates the signature
   against the server's JWK.

   The client validates the signature of the Snapshot File against the
   server's JWK, and then uses that file to initialize its local state
   by adding all of the objects from the "objects" attribute.  It then
   records the serial number of the Snapshot File.  The signed Snapshot
   File is either accessible from the Update Notification File, or made
   available to the client out-of-band.

   The client then processes each Delta File from the Update
   Notification File in order, from the Delta File with a serial number
   one greater than the client's recorded serial number, through to the
   Delta File with the largest serial number, in order to update its
   local state.

   Processing a Delta File involves three steps:

      verify the signature against the server's JWK;

      for each entry in the "removed_objects" attribute, remove from the
      local state any object with an "id" attribute value equal to the
      entry;

      for each entry in the "added_or_updated_objects" attribute: if an
      object with the given values for the "id" attribute exists in the
      local state, then replace that object with the new object;
      otherwise, add the new object to the local state.

   Once this is complete, the client records the serial number of the
   last Delta File that it processed.







Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


2.6.1.2.  Subsequent

   The client downloads the signed Update Notification File using the
   URL provided by the server (out-of-band), and validates the signature
   against the server's JWK.  If the frequency with which the client
   should do this has been suggested by the server via the "refresh"
   attribute, the client SHOULD honor that suggestion.  If the "refresh"
   attribute is not present, retrieval frequency is a local policy
   matter for the client.

   The client then processes each Delta File from the Update
   Notification File in order, from the Delta File with a serial number
   one greater than that which has been recorded, through to the Delta
   File with the largest serial number.  Processing of the Delta Files
   is otherwise as per the instructions for initial processing.

   If the Update Notification File retrieved by the client does not
   contain a Delta File with a serial number one greater than that which
   has been recorded, the client MUST delete all of its local state and
   reinitialize itself.  If the Update Notification File contains a
   Snapshot File, then that Snapshot File can be used for
   reinitialization.  If it does not, then a new Snapshot File must be
   located out-of-band.

3.  Operational Considerations

   A server may omit previously-published Delta Files from its Update
   Notification File as a matter of local policy.  If a server is
   publishing its Snapshot Files out-of-band, then omitting a Delta File
   that a client needs will result in the client needing to perform an
   out-of-band action in order to reinitialize its state.  Even if a
   server is linking to its Snapshot Files from the Update Notification
   File, reinitialization may be an expensive operation for a client.
   Servers should consider adopting local policy that limits the chance
   of reinitialization happening: for example, by using the "refresh"
   attribute value in the Update Notification File.

4.  Security Considerations

   [RFC7481] describes security requirements and considerations for RDAP
   generally.  Those requirements and considerations also apply to the
   use of this protocol.

   This protocol requires the use of JWS ([RFC7515]) and JWK
   ([RFC7517]), which in turn refer to JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)
   ([RFC7518]).  Implementations MUST support ES256 as defined in JWA
   ([RFC7518], section 3.4) for signing and validating files in this
   protocol.  Implementations MAY support other algorithms from the



Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


   "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms" registry created by
   [RFC7518].

5.  Acknowledgements

   This protocol is largely a repurposing of the RPKI Repository Delta
   Protocol (RRDP) [RFC8182] for RDAP.  Much of the terminology (e.g.
   Update Notification File, Snapshot File, Delta File) is taken from
   that document, and the structure is also quite similar.

   Experience with the Near Real Time Mirroring (NRTM) [NRTM] protocol,
   which serves a similar purpose for databases that are based on the
   Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC2622], helped to
   inform this corresponding effort in RDAP.

6.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1982]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [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>.





Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


   [RFC7515]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.

   [RFC7517]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.

   [RFC7518]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [NRTM]     "Near Real Time Mirroring", December 2010,
              <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-
              asns/db/support/documentation/mirroring>.

   [RFC2622]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
              Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2622, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2622>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8182]  Bruijnzeels, T., Muravskiy, O., Weber, B., and R. Austein,
              "The RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)", RFC 8182,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8182, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8182>.

Authors' Addresses







Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Mirroring Protocol           February 2019


   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


   Andrew Lee Newton
   American Registry for Internet Numbers
   PO Box 232290
   Centreville, VA  20120
   United States of America

   Email: andy@arin.net


























Harrison, et al.         Expires August 5, 2019                [Page 15]


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