< draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response-02.txt   draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response-03.txt >
Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft M. Martinelli Internet-Draft M. Martinelli
Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Expires: March 25, 2019 September 21, 2018 Expires: August 5, 2019 February 1, 2019
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response
draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response-02 draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-partial-response-03
Abstract Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include
capabilities to request partial responses. In fact, according to the capabilities to request partial responses. In fact, according to the
user authorization, the server can only return full responses. user authorization, the server can only return full responses.
Partial responses capability, especially in the case of search Partial responses capability, especially in the case of search
queries, could bring benefits to both clients and servers. This queries, could bring benefits to both clients and servers. This
document describes a RDAP query extension that allows clients to document describes a RDAP query extension that allows clients to
specify their preference for obtaining a partial response. specify their preference for obtaining a partial response.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . . . . . . 3 2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . . . . . . 3
3. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Subsetting Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Brief Field Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Full Field Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Subsetting Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.1. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The use of partial response in RESTful API [REST] design is very The use of partial response in RESTful API ([REST]) design is very
common. The rationale is quite simple: instead of returning objects common. The rationale is quite simple: instead of returning objects
in API responses with all data fields, only a subset is returned. in API responses with all data fields, only a subset is returned.
The benefit is obvious: less data transferred over the network mean The benefit is obvious: less data transferred over the network mean
less bandwidth usage, faster server response, less CPU time spent less bandwidth usage, faster server response, less CPU time spent
both on the server and the client, as well as less memory usage on both on the server and the client, as well as less memory usage on
the client. the client.
Several leading APIs providers (e.g. LinkedIn [LINKEDIN], Facebook Several leading APIs providers (e.g. LinkedIn [LINKEDIN], Facebook
[FACEBOOK], Google [GOOGLE]) implement the partial response feature [FACEBOOK], Google [GOOGLE]) implement the partial response feature
by providing an optional query parameter by which users require the by providing an optional query parameter by which users require the
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
[FACEBOOK], Google [GOOGLE]) implement the partial response feature [FACEBOOK], Google [GOOGLE]) implement the partial response feature
by providing an optional query parameter by which users require the by providing an optional query parameter by which users require the
fields they wish to receive. Partial response is also considered a fields they wish to receive. Partial response is also considered a
leading principle by many best practices guidelines in REST APIs leading principle by many best practices guidelines in REST APIs
implementation ([REST-API1], [REST-API2]) in order to improve implementation ([REST-API1], [REST-API2]) in order to improve
performance, save on bandwidth and possibly accelerate the overall performance, save on bandwidth and possibly accelerate the overall
interaction. In other contexts, for example in digital libraries and interaction. In other contexts, for example in digital libraries and
bibliographic catalogues, servers can provide responses according to bibliographic catalogues, servers can provide responses according to
different element sets (i.e. "brief" to get back a short response and different element sets (i.e. "brief" to get back a short response and
"full" to get back the complete response) "full" to get back the complete response)
Currently, RDAP does not provide a client with any way to request a Currently, RDAP does not provide a client with any way to request a
partial response: the server can only provide the client with the partial response: the server can only provide the client with the
full response ([RFC7483]). Furthermore, servers cannot define the full response ([RFC7483]). Furthermore, servers cannot define the
limits of the results according to partial responses and this causes limits of the results according to partial responses and this causes
strong inefficiencies. strong inefficiencies.
The protocol described in this specification extends RDAP search The protocol described in this specification extends RDAP search
capabilities to enable partial responses, by adding a new query capabilities to enable partial responses, by adding a new query
parameter and using a RESTful web service. The service is parameter and using a RESTful web service. The service is
implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) ([RFC7230])
and the conventions described in RFC 7480 [RFC7480]. and the conventions described in RFC 7480 ([RFC7480]).
Impact on the current state of RDAP implementation is low. Impact on the current state of RDAP implementation is low.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 ([RFC2119]).
2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation 2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation
Looking at the implementation experiences described above, two Looking at the implementation experiences described above, two
approaches to the implementation of partial response can be detected: approaches to the implementation of partial response can be detected:
o the client declares explicitly the data fields to get back; o the client declares explicitly the data fields to get back;
o the client declares a name identifying a server pre-defined set of o the client declares a name identifying a server pre-defined set of
data fields. data fields.
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 21
in the jCard but such information cannot be easily selected in the jCard but such information cannot be easily selected
because it is split into the items of a jagged array. because it is split into the items of a jagged array.
o RDAP responses contain some properties providing service o RDAP responses contain some properties providing service
information (e.g. rdapConformance, links, notices, remarks, etc.) information (e.g. rdapConformance, links, notices, remarks, etc.)
which are not normally selected but they are just as important. which are not normally selected but they are just as important.
They could be returned anyway but, in this case, the server would They could be returned anyway but, in this case, the server would
provide unrequested data. provide unrequested data.
As an example compliant to the first approach, the Catnap Query As an example compliant to the first approach, the Catnap Query
Language (CQL) [CQL] is a comprehensive expression language that can Language ([CQL]) is a comprehensive expression language that can be
be used to customize the JSON response of a RESTful web service. The used to customize the JSON response of a RESTful web service. The
practical application of CQL to RDAP responses points out that practical application of CQL to RDAP responses points out that
declaring explicitly the output fields would still be acceptable when declaring explicitly the output fields would still be acceptable when
a few fields are requested but it would become very complicated if a few fields are requested but it would become very complicated if
the fields should be more. In the following, two CQL expressions for the fields should be more. In the following, two CQL expressions for
a search domain query are shown (Figure 1): in the first, only a search domain query are shown (Figure 1): in the first, only
objectClassName and ldhName are requested, in the second, the fields objectClassName and ldhName are requested, in the second, the fields
of a possible WHOIS-like response are listed. of a possible WHOIS-like response are listed.
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com
&fields=domainSearchResults(objectClassName,ldhName) &fields=domainSearchResults(objectClassName,ldhName)
skipping to change at page 5, line 10 skipping to change at page 5, line 14
Finally, considering that there is not a real need for RDAP users to Finally, considering that there is not a real need for RDAP users to
have the maximum flexibility in defining all the possible sets of have the maximum flexibility in defining all the possible sets of
logically connected fields (for example, users interested in domains logically connected fields (for example, users interested in domains
usually need to know the status, the creation date, the expire date usually need to know the status, the creation date, the expire date
of each domain), the latter approach is preferred. of each domain), the latter approach is preferred.
3. RDAP Path Segment Specification 3. RDAP Path Segment Specification
The new query parameter is an OPTIONAL extension of search path The new query parameter is an OPTIONAL extension of search path
segments defined in RFC 7482 [RFC7482]. The query parameter is segments defined in RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). The query parameter is
"fieldSet" whose value is a string identifying a server pre-defined "fieldSet" whose value is a string identifying a server pre-defined
set of fields (Figure 2). Values REQUIRED to be implemented are: set of fields (Figure 2). Values REQUIRED to be implemented are:
o id: the server provides only the "objectClassName" field and the o id: the server provides only the "objectClassName" field and the
key field ("handle" for entities, "ldhName" for domains and key field ("handle" for entities, "ldhName" for domains and
nameservers). This field set can be used when the client wants to nameservers). This field set can be used when the client wants to
obtain a collection of object identifiers (Figure 3); obtain a collection of object identifiers (Figure 3);
o brief: it contains the fields that can be included in a "short" o brief: it contains the fields that can be included in a "short"
response. This field set can be used when the client is asking response. This field set can be used when the client is asking
for a subset of the full response which gives a basic knowledge of for a subset of the full response which gives a basic knowledge of
each object; each object. The fields are those defined in Section 3.1;
o full: it contains all the information the server can provide for a o full: it contains all the information the server can provide for a
particular object. particular object. Additional considerations are reported in
Section 3.2.
Fields belonging to brief and full field sets should be provided Fields belonging to brief and full field sets should be provided
according to users access levels. Servers MAY implement additional according to users access levels. RDAP providers MAY add any
field sets not included in the list above. Servers SHOULD also property providing service information. Servers MAY implement
define a "default" field set. additional field sets not included in the list above. Servers SHOULD
also define a "default" field set.
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=id https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=id
Figure 2: Example of RDAP search query reporting the fieldSet Figure 2: Example of RDAP search query reporting the fieldSet
parameter parameter
{ {
"rdapConformance": [ "rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0", "rdap_level_0",
], ],
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
{ {
"objectClassName": "domain", "objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example2.com" "ldhName": "example2.com"
}, },
... ...
] ]
} }
Figure 3: Example of RDAP response according to the "id" field set Figure 3: Example of RDAP response according to the "id" field set
3.1. Subsetting Metadata 3.1. Brief Field Set
In order to ensure the highest degree of interoperability, the brief
field set should contain the most commonly used data elements. Based
on the assumption that an RDAP server will return almost the same
data as those replied by the corresponding Whois service, the
elements included in the brief field set could be those identified in
RFC 7485 ([RFC7485]) as mostly supported (i.e. by more than one third
of contacted services).
Therefore, RDAP servers are RECOMMENDED to return the following
elements in the brief field set (Table 1):
+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Object | Whois property | RDAP property |
| class | | |
+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Domain | Domain Name | ldhName |
| | Domain Status | status |
| | Creation Date | event whose eventAction type is |
| | | "registration" |
| | Expiration Date | event whose eventAction type is |
| | | "expiration" |
| | Update Date | event whose eventAction type is |
| | | "last update" |
| | | |
| Nameserver | Name Server | ldhName |
| | | |
| Entity | Entity ID | handle |
| | Entity Name | vcard fn |
| | Entity | vcard org |
| | Organization | |
| | Entity Email | vcard email |
| | Entity Phone | vcard tel with type="voice" |
| | Entity Fax | vcard tel with type="fax" |
| | Entity Country | country name in vcard adr |
| | Entity City | locality in vcard adr |
| | Entity Postal | postal code in vcard adr |
| | Code | |
+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
Table 1: Elements included in brief field set
The term "Entity" refers to any kind of contact.
3.2. Full Field Set
With regards to the full field set, some additional considerations
can be made about how second level objects could be represented. In
fact, since the topmost objects could be returned according to
different field sets, the same thing could go for their related
objects. As a consequence, the full response could range from the
one containing no relationship up to a response where each related
object is in turn in full format.
FOR DISCUSSION: Should this specification furtherly detail the full
field set according to the different representations of the related
objects?
3.3. Subsetting Metadata
According to most advanced principles in REST design, collectively According to most advanced principles in REST design, collectively
known as HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State) known as HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State)
([HATEOAS]), a client entering a REST application through an initial ([HATEOAS]), a client entering a REST application through an initial
URI should use the server-provided links to dynamically discover URI should use the server-provided links to dynamically discover
available actions and access the resources it needs. In this way, available actions and access the resources it needs. In this way,
the client is not requested to have prior knowledge of the service the client is not requested to have prior knowledge of the service
and, consequently, to hard code the URIs of different resources. and, consequently, to hard code the URIs of different resources.
This would allow the server to make URI changes as the API evolves This would allow the server to make URI changes as the API evolves
without breaking the clients. Definitively, a REST service should be without breaking the clients. Definitively, a REST service should be
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
o "currentFieldSet": the value of fieldSet parameter as specified in o "currentFieldSet": the value of fieldSet parameter as specified in
the query string; the query string;
o "availableFieldSets": an array of objects each one describing an o "availableFieldSets": an array of objects each one describing an
available field set: available field set:
* "name": the field set name; * "name": the field set name;
* "description": a human-readable description of the field set; * "description": a human-readable description of the field set;
* "default": whether the field set is applied by default; * "default": whether the field set is applied by default;
* "links": an array of links as described in RFC 8288 [RFC8288] * "links": an array of links as described in RFC 8288 ([RFC8288])
containing the query string that applies the field set. containing the query string that applies the field set.
Both "currentFieldSet" and "availableFieldSets" are OPTIONAL fields Both "currentFieldSet" and "availableFieldSets" are OPTIONAL fields
of the "subsetting_metadata" structure. In particular, the of the "subsetting_metadata" structure. In particular, the
"currentFieldSet" field is provided when the query string contains a "currentFieldSet" field is provided when the query string contains a
valid value for fieldSet parameter, while the "availableFieldSets" valid value for fieldSet parameter, while the "availableFieldSets"
field SHOULD be provided when the fieldSet parameter is missing in field SHOULD be provided when the fieldSet parameter is missing in
the query string or when it is present and the server implements more the query string or when it is present and the server implements more
than a field set for the RDAP object. At least the "name" field is than a field set for the RDAP object. At least the "name" field is
REQUIRED in each item of the "availableFieldSets" array while the REQUIRED in each item of the "availableFieldSets" array while the
other fields are RECOMMENDED. other fields are RECOMMENDED.
3.1.1. Representing Subsetting Links 3.3.1. Representing Subsetting Links
An RDAP server MAY use the "links" array of the "subsetting_metadata" An RDAP server MAY use the "links" array of the "subsetting_metadata"
section to provide ready-made references [RFC8288] to the available section to provide ready-made references ([RFC8288]) to the available
field set (Figure 4). Each link represents a reference to an field set (Figure 4). Each link represents a reference to an
alternate view of the results. alternate view of the results.
{ {
"rdapConformance": [ "rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0", "rdap_level_0",
"subsetting_level_0" "subsetting_level_0"
], ],
... ...
"subsetting_metadata": { "subsetting_metadata": {
skipping to change at page 8, line 52 skipping to change at page 9, line 52
array. array.
5. Implementation Status 5. Implementation Status
NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
to publication as an RFC. to publication as an RFC.
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is ([RFC7942]). The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist. other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 skipping to change at page 10, line 26
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics
of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it
Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/
Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries
using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. The using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD.
RDAP server does not implement any security policy because data
returned by this server are only for experimental testing
purposes.
Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research
implementation. implementation.
Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification. described in this specification.
Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Search query typically requires more server resources (such as Search query typically requires more server resources (such as
memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to lookup memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to lookup
query. This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion and query. This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion and
subsequent denial of service due to abuse. Partial response can subsequent denial of service due to abuse. Partial response can
contribute together with other strategies (e.g. restricting search contribute together with other strategies (e.g. restricting search
functionality, limiting the rate of search requests, truncating and functionality, limiting the rate of search requests, truncating and
paging results) to mitigate this risk. paging results) to mitigate this risk.
Furthermore, partial response can help RDAP operators to regulate Furthermore, partial response can help RDAP operators to regulate
access control based on client identification, implemented by HTTP access control based on client identification, implemented by HTTP
basic or digest authentication as described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481] or basic or digest authentication as described in RFC 7481 ([RFC7481])
by a federated authentication system or by a federated authentication system
([I-D.hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid]). In fact, RDAP operators can ([I-D.hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid]). In fact, RDAP operators can
follow different, not alternative, approaches to the building of follow different, not alternative, approaches to the building of
responses according to the user access levels: responses according to the user access levels:
o the list of fields for each set (except "id") can be different o the list of fields for each set (except "id") can be different
according to the user access levels. At present, this is already according to the user access levels. At present, this is already
implemented for the full response, but it could be done also for implemented for the full response, but it could be done also for
the other defined field sets. In some cases, it might happen that the other defined field sets. In some cases, it might happen that
brief and full field sets are exactly the same; brief and full field sets are exactly the same;
skipping to change at page 11, line 25 skipping to change at page 12, line 20
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
[RFC7485] Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S., and A. Servin,
"Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects",
RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7485>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[CQL] Whitaker, G., "Catnap Query Language Reference", September [CQL] Whitaker, G., "Catnap Query Language Reference", September
2017, <https://github.com/gregwhitaker/catnap/wiki/ 2017, <https://github.com/gregwhitaker/catnap/wiki/
Catnap-Query-Language-Reference>. Catnap-Query-Language-Reference>.
[FACEBOOK] [FACEBOOK]
facebook.com, "facebook for developers - Using the Graph facebook.com, "facebook for developers - Using the Graph
API", July 2017, <https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ API", July 2017, <https://developers.facebook.com/docs/
graph-api/using-graph-api>. graph-api/using-graph-api>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 9 skipping to change at page 13, line 15
[I-D.hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid] [I-D.hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid]
Hollenbeck, S., "Federated Authentication for the Hollenbeck, S., "Federated Authentication for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) using OpenID Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) using OpenID
Connect", draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid-10 (work in Connect", draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-openid-10 (work in
progress), August 2018. progress), August 2018.
[I-D.loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging] [I-D.loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging]
Loffredo, M., Martinelli, M., and S. Hollenbeck, Loffredo, M., Martinelli, M., and S. Hollenbeck,
"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters
for Result Sorting and Paging", draft-loffredo-regext- for Result Sorting and Paging", draft-loffredo-regext-
rdap-sorting-and-paging-04 (work in progress), June 2018. rdap-sorting-and-paging-05 (work in progress), September
2018.
[LINKEDIN] [LINKEDIN]
linkedin.com, "Java One 2009: Building Consistent RESTful linkedin.com, "Java One 2009: Building Consistent RESTful
APIs in a High Performance Environment", July 2009, APIs in a High Performance Environment", July 2009,
<https://blog.linkedin.com/2009/07/08/brandon-duncan-java- <https://blog.linkedin.com/2009/07/08/brandon-duncan-java-
one-building-consistent-restful-apis-in-a-high- one-building-consistent-restful-apis-in-a-high-
performance-environment>. performance-environment>.
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", 2000, Network-based Software Architectures", 2000,
skipping to change at page 12, line 42 skipping to change at page 13, line 49
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
00: Initial version. 00: Initial version.
01: Added Catnap Query Language as an example of language that can 01: Added Catnap Query Language as an example of language that can
be used to declare explicitly the output fields of RDAP responses. be used to declare explicitly the output fields of RDAP responses.
Revised some sentences and references. Revised some sentences and references.
02: Added "Subsetting Metadata" and "RDAP Conformance" sections. 02: Added "Subsetting Metadata" and "RDAP Conformance" sections.
03: Added "Brief Field Set" and "Full Field Set" sections.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mario Loffredo Mario Loffredo
IIT-CNR/Registro.it IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Via Moruzzi,1 Via Moruzzi,1
Pisa 56124 Pisa 56124
IT IT
Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
42 lines changed or deleted 112 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/