[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag) 00 01 02 03 04 05

Registration Protocols Extensions                          S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft                                             Verisign Labs
Updates: 7484 (if approved)                                    A. Newton
Intended status: Best Current Practice                              ARIN
Expires: February 4, 2019                                 August 3, 2018


        Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
                  draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-05

Abstract

   The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that
   can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing
   domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries.  The
   method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for
   processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries.  This
   limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query
   types are typically unstructured.  This document updates RFC 7484 by
   describing an operational practice that can be used to add structure
   to RDAP identifiers that makes it possible to identify the
   authoritative server for additional RDAP queries.

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 February 4, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


   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
   2.  Object Naming Practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Registration Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  RDAP Conformance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Bootstrap Service Registry Structure  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  RDAP Extensions Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  OpenRDAP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method
   ([RFC7484]) that can be used to identify the authoritative server for
   processing domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number
   (ASN) queries.  This method works because each of these data elements
   is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the
   element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP
   service provider.  For example, domain names include labels (such as
   "com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service
   providers.

   As noted in Section 9 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484], the method does not
   describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing
   entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using
   certain search patterns.  This limitation exists because the
   identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a
   way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific
   service provider.  This document describes an operational practice
   that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers that makes it



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


   possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP
   queries.

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

2.  Object Naming Practice

   Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it
   possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP
   query using the method described in RFC 7484 [RFC7484].  A service
   provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode HYPHEN-MINUS
   character "-" (U+002D, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC
   3986 [RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the
   service provider.  For example, a tag for a service provider
   identified by the string value "ARIN" is represented as "-ARIN".

   In combination with the rdapConformance attribute described in
   Section 4, service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP
   query object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative
   server for processing an RDAP query.  Building on the example from
   Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], an RDAP entity handle can be
   constructed that allows an RDAP client to bootstrap an entity query.
   The following identifier is used to find information for the entity
   associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN":

   XXXX-ARIN

   Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this
   identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier
   elements.  Handles can themselves contain HYPHEN-MINUS characters;
   the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN-
   MINUS character in the tagged identifier.  The service provider
   identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry.
   The base URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP
   query path segment.  For example, if the base RDAP URL
   "https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service provider
   "YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged entity
   identifier "XXXX-YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service
   provider ("YYYY") identifiers.  The service provider identifier
   "YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP
   URL "https://example.com/rdap/".  The RDAP query URL is formed using
   the base RDAP URL and entity path segment described in Section 3.1.5
   of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], using "XXXX-YYY" as the value of the handle




Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


   identifier.  The complete RDAP query URL becomes
   "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY".

   Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured
   potential query identifiers in RDAP responses.  Consider these elided
   examples ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from
   Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle identifiers
   have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC"
   respectively:

   {
     "objectClassName" : "domain",
     "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
     "ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
     "nameservers" :
     [
       ...
     ],
     "secureDNS":
     {
       ...
     },
     "remarks" :
     [
       ...
     ],
     "links" :
     [
       ...
     ],
     "events" :
     [
       ...
     ],
     "entities" :
     [
       {
         "objectClassName" : "entity",
         "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
         "vcardArray":
         [
           ...
         ],
         "roles" : [ "registrant" ],
         "remarks" :
         [
           ...
         ],



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


         "links" :
         [
           ...
         ],
         "events" :
         [
           ...
         ]
       }
     ],
     "network" :
     {
       "objectClassName" : "ip network",
       "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
       "startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
       "endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
       "ipVersion" : "v4",
       "name": "NET-RTR-1",
       "type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
       "country" : "AU",
       "parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
       "status" : [ "active" ]
     }
   }

                                 Figure 1

   {
     "objectClassName" : "domain",
     "handle" : "XXXX-YYY-DNR",
     "ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
     "unicodeName" : "foo.example",
     "variants" :
     [
       ...
     ],
     "status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
     "publicIds":
     [
       ...
     ],
     "nameservers" :
     [
       {
         "objectClassName" : "nameserver",
         "handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
         "ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
         "status" : [ "active" ],



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


         "ipAddresses" :
         {
           ...
         },
         "remarks" :
         [
           ...
         ],
         "links" :
         [
           ...
         ],
         "events" :
         [
           ...
         ]
       },
       {
         "objectClassName" : "nameserver",
         "handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
         "ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
         "status" : [ "active" ],
         "ipAddresses" :
         {
           ...
         },
         "remarks" :
         [
           ...
         ],
         "links" :
         [
           ...
         ],
         "events" :
         [
           ...
         ]
       }
      ],
      "secureDNS":
      {
        ...
      },
      "remarks" :
      [
        ...
      ],



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


      "links" :
      [
        ...
      ],
      "port43" : "whois.example.net",
      "events" :
      [
        ...
      ],
      "entities" :
      [
        {
          "objectClassName" : "entity",
          "handle" : "XXXX-ABC",
          "vcardArray":
          [
            ...
          ],
          "status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
          "roles" : [ "registrant" ],
          "remarks" :
          [
            ...
          ],
          "links" :
          [
            ...
          ],
          "events" :
          [
            ...
          ]
        }
      ]
   }

                                 Figure 2

   As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can
   contain "self" links.  Service provider tags and self references
   SHOULD be consistent.  If they are inconsistent, the service provider
   tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to
   identify a service provider.

   There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN-
   MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator
   purposes in an entity handle.  This could lead to a client mistakenly
   assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


   text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier.  A
   client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid
   service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result.
   As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service
   provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding an rdapConformance
   value to query responses as described in Section 4.

   The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons:
   1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it
   avoids collision with URI-reserved characters.  The list of
   unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]
   provided multiple options for consideration:

   unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"

   ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly
   used in entity handles for non-separator purposes.  HYPHEN-MINUS is
   commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will
   reduce implementation requirements and operational risk.  The
   remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used
   as separators in entity handles.

3.  Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags

   The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is
   represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484
   [RFC7484].  The JSON output of this registry contains contact
   information for the registered service provider identifiers,
   alphanumeric identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, and
   base RDAP service URLs as shown in this example.





















Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


{
  "version": "1.0",
  "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
  "description": "RDAP bootstrap file for service provider object tags",
  "services": [
    [
      ["contact@example.com"],
      ["YYYY"],
      [
        "https://example.com/rdap/"
      ]
    ],
    [
      ["contact@example.org"],
      ["ZZ54"],
      [
        "http://rdap.example.org/"
      ]
    ],
    [
      ["contact@example.net"],
      ["1754"],
      [
        "https://example.net/rdap/",
        "http://example.net/rdap/"
      ]
    ]
  ]
 }

                                 Figure 3

   Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix
   portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2
   of RFC 5730 [RFC5730].

3.1.  Registration Procedure

   The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come
   First Served" policy defined in RFC 8126 [RFC8126].  Provider
   identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request.
   Registration requests include an email address to be associated with
   the registered service provider identifier, the requested service
   provider identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an
   identifier), and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the
   service provider identifier.





Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


4.  RDAP Conformance

   RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST
   indicate conformance with this specification by including an
   rdapConformance ([RFC7483]) value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0".  The
   information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions
   Registry is described in Section 5.2.

   Example rdapConformance structure with extension specified:

             "rdapConformance" :
             [
               "rdap_level_0",
               "rdap_objectTag_level_0"
             ]

                                 Figure 4

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to create the RDAP "Bootstrap Service Registry for
   Provider Object Tags" listed below and make it available as JSON
   objects.  The contents of this registry is described in Section 3,
   with the formal syntax specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484].

5.1.  Bootstrap Service Registry Structure

   Entries in this registry contain the following information:

   o  An email address that identifies a contact associated with the
      registered RDAP service provider value.
   o  An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider
      being registered.
   o  One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
      registration.  The URLS are expected to supply the same data, but
      they can differ in scheme or other components as required by the
      service operator.

5.2.  RDAP Extensions Registry

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

      Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag
      Registry operator: Any
      Published specification: This document.
      Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>




Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


      Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for
      structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping.

6.  Implementation Status

   NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
   to publication as an RFC.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
   [RFC7942].  The description of implementations in this section is
   intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
   drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual
   implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
   Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
   presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not
   intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
   implementations or their features.  Readers are advised to note that
   other implementations may exist.

   According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

6.1.  Verisign Labs

      Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs
      Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/
      Description: This implementation includes support for domain
      registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country
      code top-level domains.  Client authentication is required to
      receive entity information in query responses.
      Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research
      implementation.
      Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
      described in this specification.
      Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com

6.2.  OpenRDAP

      Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP
      Location: https://www.openrdap.org





Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


      Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity
      handles with a service provider tag.  A test Bootstrap Services
      Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one.
      Level of Maturity: Alpha
      Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the HYPHEN-MINUS
      separator character only.
      Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org

7.  Security Considerations

   This practice uses IANA as a well-known, central trusted authority to
   allow users to get RDAP data from an authoritative source, reducing
   the risk of sending queries to non-authoritative sources and
   divulging query information to unintended parties.  Using TLS
   [RFC5246] to protect the connection to IANA allows the server to
   authenticate itself as being operated by IANA and provides integrity
   protection for the resulting referral information, as well as
   providing privacy protection via data confidentiality.  The
   subsequent RDAP connection is performed as usual, and retains the
   same security properties of the RDAP protocols themselves.

8.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
   their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
   Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz.  In addition, the authors
   would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
   operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been
   implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for
   several years.  Their experience provided significant inspiration for
   the development of this document.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.

   [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>.



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [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>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7482]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
              Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   00:  Initial version.
   01:  Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT.
      Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service
      provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom
      Harrison).  Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network



Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             RDAP Object Tagging               August 2018


      example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by
      Marcos Sanz).  Added acknowledgements.
   02:  Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE.
      Clarity updates and fixed an example handle.  Added text to
      describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in
      entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters.
   03:  Added Implementation Status section (Section 6).
   04:  Keepalive refresh.
   05:  Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6.
   00:  Initial working group version.
   01:  Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the
      separator character.
   02:  Nit fixes.  Added rdapConformance text, switched back to HYPHEN
      MINUS, and added IANA registration instructions per working group
      last call discussion.  Updated suffix syntax reference from the
      IANA EPP ROID registry to RFC 5730 (which is what the IANA
      registry references).
   03:  Shepherd writeup review updates to explain examples in
      Section 2.
   04:  AD review update to clarify query path construction.
   05:  IESG review update: object naming practice, revised an example
      to include multiple separator HYPHEN-MINUS characters, revised
      security considerations, revised IANA considerations, revised IANA
      registry description and registration procedure to add email
      address contact information.

Authors' Addresses

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

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


   Andrew Lee Newton
   American Registry for Internet Numbers
   PO Box 232290
   Centreville, VA  20120
   US

   Email: andy@arin.net
   URI:   http://www.arin.net





Hollenbeck & Newton     Expires February 4, 2019               [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/