< draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search-03.txt		draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search-04.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: April 19, 2019 October 16, 2018		Expires: August 4, 2019 January 31, 2019
	Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities		Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities
	draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search-03		draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include query		The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include query
	capabilities to find the list of domains related to a set of entities		capabilities to find the list of domains related to a set of entities
	matching a given search pattern. Even if such capabilities, commonly		matching a given search pattern. Even if such capabilities, commonly
	referred to as reverse search, respond to some needs not yet readily		referred as reverse search, respond to some needs not yet readily
	fulfilled by the current Whois protocol, they have raised concern		fulfilled by the current Whois protocol, they have raised concerns
	from two perspectives: server processing impact and data privacy.		from two perspectives: server processing impact and data privacy.
	Anyway, the impact of the reverse queries on RDAP servers processing		Anyway, the impact of the reverse queries on RDAP servers processing
	is the same of the standard searches and it can be reduced by		is the same as the standard searches and it can be reduced by
	implementing policies to deal with big result sets, while data		implementing policies to deal with large result sets, while data
	privacy risks can be mitigated by RDAP access control		privacy risks can be prevented by RDAP access control
	functionalities. This document describes RDAP query extensions that		functionalities. This document describes RDAP query extensions that
	allows clients to request a reverse search based on the domains-		allow clients to request a reverse search based on the domains-
	entities relationship.		entities relationship.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 April 19, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 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. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. JSON in URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. JSON in URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Reverse Whois is a service provided by many web applications that		Reverse Whois is a service provided by many web applications that
	allows users to find domain names owned by an individual person or		allow users to find domain names owned by an individual or a company
	company starting from the owner details (like name, email). Even if		starting from the owner details, such as name and email. Even if it
	the availability of this service might raise some objections due to		has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g. uncovering
	potential privacy risks, ICANN itself, in its report about Next-Gen		trademark infringements, detecting cybercrime cases), its
	Registration Directory Service (RDS) [ICANN-RDS], states that it is		availability as a standardised Whois capability has been objected for
	allowed when driven by some permissible purposes (e.g. legal actions,		two main reasons, which now don't seem to conflict with an RDAP
	criminal investigations) and if it provides adequate policies to		implementation.
	enforce the requestor accreditation, authentication, authorization,
	and terms and conditions of data use.
	It is well known that such policies are not implemented in Whois		The first objection has been caused by the potential risks of privacy
	[RFC3912], while they are in RDAP. In fact, RDAP relies on security		violation. However, TLDs community is considering a new generation
	features, available in the HTTP protocol, to support access control		of Registration Directory Services ([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2]), which
	based on local policy [RFC7481].		provide access to sensitive data under some permissible purposes and
			according to adequate policies to enforce the requestor
			accreditation, authentication, authorization, and terms and
			conditions of data use. It is well known that such security policies
			are not implemented in Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP
			([RFC7481]). Therefore, RDAP permits a reverse search implementation
			complying with privacy protection principles.
	Another objection to the implementation of Reverse Whois is connected		Another objection to the implementation of a reverse search
	with its impact on server processing. Since RDAP supports search		capability has been connected with its impact on server processing.
	queries, the impact of both standard and reverse searches can be		Since RDAP supports search queries, the impact of both standard and
	mitigated by servers adopting ad hoc strategies. Furthermore,		reverse searches is equivalent and can be mitigated by servers
	reverse search is almost always performed by specifying an entity		adopting ad hoc strategies. Furthermore, reverse search is almost
	role (e.g. registrant, technical contact) and this can contribute to		always performed by specifying an entity role (e.g. registrant,
	restrict the result set.		technical contact) and this can contribute to restricting the result
			set.
	Reverse searches, such as finding the list of domain names associated		Reverse searches, such as finding the list of domain names associated
	to contacts, nameservers or DNSSEC keys, may be useful to registrars		with contacts, nameservers or DNSSEC keys, may be useful to
	as well. Usually, registries adopt out-of-band mechanisms to provide		registrars as well. Usually, registries adopt out-of-band mechanisms
	results to registrars asking for reverse searches on their domains.		to provide results to registrars asking for reverse searches on their
	Possible reasons of such requests are:		domains. Possible reasons of such requests are:
	o the loss of synchronization between the registrar database and the		o the loss of synchronization between the registrar database and the
	registry database;		registry database;
	o the need of such data to perform massive EPP updates (i.e.		o the need of such data to perform massive EPP ([RFC5730]) updates
	changing the contacts of a set of domains, etc.).		(e.g. changing the contacts of a set of domains, etc.).
	Currently, RDAP does not provide any way for a client to search for		Currently, RDAP does not provide any way for a client to search for
	the collection of domains associated to an entity [RFC7482]. A query		the collection of domains associated with an entity ([RFC7482]). A
	(lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities		query (lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities
	related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar,		related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar,
	administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation		administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation
	is not allowed. Only reverse searches to find the collection of		is not allowed. Only reverse searches to find the collection of
	domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested.		domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested.
	Since entities can be in relationship with all RDAP objects		Since entities can be in relation with all RDAP objects ([RFC7483]),
	[RFC7483], the availability of a reverse search can be common to all		the availability of a reverse search can be common to all RDAP query
	RDAP query paths.		paths.
	The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP		The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP
	query capabilities to enable reverse search based on the domains-		query capabilities to enable reverse search based on the domains-
	entities relationship (the classic Reverse Whois scenario). The		entities relationship (the classic Reverse Whois scenario). The
	extension is implemented by adding new path segments (i.e. search		extension is implemented by adding new path segments (i.e. search
	paths) and using a RESTful web service [REST]. The service is		paths) and using a RESTful web service ([REST]). 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]).
	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 [RFC2119].
	2. RDAP Path Segment Specification		2. RDAP Path Segment Specification
	The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined		The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined
	in RFC 7482 [RFC7482]. The search paths are:		in RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). The search paths are:
	Syntax: domains?entityHandle=<reverse search pattern>		Syntax: domains?entityHandle=<reverse search pattern>
	Syntax: domains?entityFn=<reverse search pattern>		Syntax: domains?entityFn=<reverse search pattern>
	Syntax: domains?entityEmail=<reverse search pattern>		Syntax: domains?entityEmail=<reverse search pattern>
	Syntax: domains?entityAddr=<reverse search pattern>		Syntax: domains?entityAddr=<reverse search pattern>
	The reverse search pattern is a JSON [RFC8259] object including two		The reverse search pattern is a JSON ([RFC8259]) object including two
	members: "value" and "role". The "value" member represents the		members: "value" and "role". The "value" member represents the
	search pattern to be applied to the corresponding entity field and		search pattern to be applied to the corresponding entity field and
	can be a JSON type primitive or object. The "role" member is a		can be a JSON type primitive or object. The "role" member is a
	string whose possible values are those detailed in Section 10.2.4 of		string whose possible values are those detailed in Section 10.2.4 of
	RFC 7483 [RFC7483]. The former is REQUIRED while the latter is		RFC 7483 ([RFC7483]). The former is REQUIRED while the latter is
	OPTIONAL to allow RDAP servers to provide reverse search capabilities		OPTIONAL to allow RDAP servers to provide reverse search capabilities
	without specifying any role.		without specifying any role.
	The search patterns corresponding to the "value" in the first two		The search patterns corresponding to the "value" in the first two
	cases are the same as specified in paragraph Section 3.2.3 of RFC		cases (Figure 1) are the same as specified in paragraph Section 3.2.3
	7482 [RFC7482] (Figure 1).		of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]).
	domains?entityHandle={"value":"CID-40*","role":"registrant"}		domains?entityHandle={"value":"CID-40*","role":"registrant"}
	domains?entityFn={"value":"Bobby*","role":"registrant"}		domains?entityFn={"value":"Bobby*","role":"registrant"}
	Figure 1: Examples of RDAP queries to find all domains related to a		Figure 1: Examples of RDAP queries to find all domains related to a
	registrant whose handle matches "CID-40*" and whose formatted name		registrant whose handle matches "CID-40*" and whose formatted name
	matches "Bobby*"		matches "Bobby*"
	The last two reverse searches are considered by ICANN very useful to		The last two reverse searches are considered by gTLD stakeholders
	improve searchability capabilities of the Registry Directory Services		very useful to improve RDS searchability ([ICANN-RDS1], [ICANN-RA]).
	([ICANN-RDS], [ICANN-RA]).
	Searches for domains by related entity email are specified using this		Searches for domains by related entity email are specified using this
	form:		form:
	domains?entityEmail={"value":"XXXX","role":"ZZZZ"}		domains?entityEmail={"value":"XXXX","role":"ZZZZ"}
	where XXXX is a search pattern representing an email address as		where XXXX is a search pattern representing an email address as
	defined in RFC 5322 [RFC5322].		defined in RFC 5322 ([RFC5322]).
	Searches for domains by related entity postal address are specified		Searches for domains by related entity postal address are specified
	using this form:		using this form:
	domains?entityAddr={"value":YYYY,"role":"ZZZZ"}		domains?entityAddr={"value":YYYY,"role":"ZZZZ"}
	where YYYY is a JSON object containing the information described in		where YYYY is a JSON object containing the information described in
	Section 2.4 of RFC 5733 [RFC5733], respectively: "street", "city",		Section 2.4 of RFC 5733 ([RFC5733]), respectively: "street", "city",
	"sp", "pc" and "cc" (Figure 2). All the members of the postal		"sp", "pc" and "cc" (Figure 2). All the members of the postal
	address object are OPTIONAL but at least one is REQUIRED. The		address object are OPTIONAL but at least one is REQUIRED. The
	constraints on the members are implicitly joined by AND.		constraints on the members are implicitly joined by AND.
	domains?entityAddr={"value":{"cc":"CA","city":"Sydney"},"role":"registrant"}		domains?entityAddr={"value":{"cc":"CA","city":"Sydney"},"role":"registrant"}
	Figure 2: Example of a RDAP query to find all domains related to a		Figure 2: Example of a RDAP query to find all domains related to a
	registrant whose postal address contains the country code equals to		registrant whose postal address contains the country code equals to
	"CA" and the city equals to "Sydney"		"CA" and the city equals to "Sydney"
	3. Implementation Considerations		3. Implementation Considerations
	The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible.		The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible.
	The search paths "handle" and "fn" are used as standard paths to		The search paths "handle" and "fn" are used as standard paths to
	search for entities. With regards to the last two reverse searches,		search for entities. With regards to the last two reverse searches,
	both email and postal address information are usually required by the		both email and postal address information are usually required by the
	registries but, while the former is usually mapped on a DBMS indexed		registries but, while the former is usually mapped onto a DBMS
	field, the latter is mapped on a combination of non-indexed fields.		indexed field, the latter is mapped onto a combination of non-indexed
	As a consequence while the former should not significantly decrease		fields. As a consequence while the former should not significantly
	the performance, the latter might have an impact on server		decrease the performance, the latter might have an impact on server
	processing. Anyway, this impact is evaluated to be the same as other		processing. Anyway, this impact is evaluated to be the same as other
	query capabilities already presented in RDAP (e.g. wildcard prefixed		query capabilities already presented in RDAP (e.g. wildcard prefixed
	search pattern) so the risks to generate huge result sets are the		search pattern) so the risks to generate huge result sets are the
	same existing for the other standard searches and can be mitigated by		same as those related to other standard searches and can be mitigated
	adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting search functionalities,		by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting search
	limiting the rate of search requests according to the user profile,		functionalities, limiting the rate of search requests according to
	truncating and paging the results, returning partial responses).		the user profile, truncating and paging the results, returning
			partial responses).
	3.1. JSON in URLs		3.1. JSON in URLs
	Many web services, including RDAP, rely on the HTTP GET method to		Many web services, including RDAP, rely on the HTTP GET method to
	take advantage from some of its features:		take advantage from some of its features:
	o GET requests can be cached;		o GET requests can be cached;
	o GET requests remain in the browser history;		o GET requests remain in the browser history;
	o GET requests can be bookmarked.		o GET requests can be bookmarked.
	Sometimes it happens that such advantages should be combined with the		Sometimes, it happens that such advantages should be combined with
	requirement to pass objects and arrays in the query string. JSON is		the requirement to pass objects and arrays in the query string. JSON
	the best candidate as data interchange format but it contains some		is the best candidate as data interchange format, but it contains
	characters that are forbidden from appearing in a URL. Anyway,		some characters that are forbidden from appearing in a URL. Anyway,
	escaping the invalid characters is not an issue because, on client		escaping the invalid characters is not an issue because, on the
	side, modern browsers automatically encode URLs and, on server side,		client side, modern browsers automatically encode URLs and, on the
	a lot of URL encoding/decoding libraries for all web development		server side, several URL encoding/decoding libraries for all web
	programming languages are available. The downside of URL encoding is		development programming languages are available. The downside of URL
	that it can make a URL rather long which, depending on the initial		encoding is that it can make a pretty long URL, which, depending on
	length and the number of invalid characters, might exceed the		the initial length and the number of invalid characters, might exceed
	practical limit of web browsers (i.e. 2,000 characters).		the practical limit of web browsers (i.e. 2,000 characters).
	Other solutions to pass a JSON expression in a URL could be:		Other solutions to pass a JSON expression in a URL could be:
	o converting JSON to Base64 ([RFC4648]) but binary data are		o converting JSON to Base64 ([RFC4648]), but binary data are
	unreadable;		unreadable;
	o using a JSON variation that complies with URL specifications and		o using a JSON variation that complies with URL specifications and
	mantains readability like Rison ([RISON]), URLON ([URLON]) or		maintains readability like Rison ([RISON]), URLON ([URLON]) or
	JSURL ([JSURL]).		JSURL ([JSURL]).
	The extensions proposed in this document rely on URL encoding because		The extensions proposed in this document rely on URL encoding because
	it is widely supported and the risk to exceed the maximum URL length		it is widely supported and the risk to exceed the maximum URL length
	is considered to be very unlikely in RDAP.		is considered to be very unlikely in RDAP.
	4. Implementation Status		4. 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 7, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 11 ¶
	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".
	4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it		4.1. 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
	5. Security Considerations		5. Privacy Considerations
	Security services for the operations specified in this document are		The use of the capability described in this document SHOULD be
	described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481]. It is quite easy to imagine that,		compliant with the rules about privacy protection each RDAP provider
	in order to be compliant with ICANN recommendations about its use,		is subject to. Sensitive registration data SHOULD be protected and
	RDAP servers will provide reverse search, like other query		accessible for permissible purposes only. Therefore, it is
	capabilities, only to restricted communities. One realistic scenario		recommended that RDAP servers provide reverse search only to those
	for servers is to provide reverse search only for registrars		requestors who are authorized according to a lawful basis. Some
	searching for their own domains. Another one is to prevent users to		potential users of this capability include registrars searching for
	start a reverse search from a registrant detail, by removing		their own domains and operators in the exercise of an official
	"registrant" from the possible "role" values.		authority or performing a specific task in the public interest that
			is set out in law. Another scenario consists of permitting reverse
			searches, which take into account only those entities that have
			previously given the explicit consent for publishing and processing
			their personal data.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. Security Considerations
			Security services required to provide controlled access to the
			operations specified in this document are described in RFC 7481
			([RFC7481]).
			7. IANA Considerations
	This document has no actions for IANA.		This document has no actions for IANA.
	7. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Francisco		The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Francisco
	Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their contribution to		Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their contribution to
	this document.		this document.
	8. References		9. References
	8.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,		[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.
			[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
			[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
			STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
	[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)		[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
	Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733,		Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733,
	August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.		August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.
	[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer		[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
	Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",		Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
	RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,		RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
	[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the		[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
	skipping to change at page 8, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 15 ¶
	[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>.
	[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data		[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
	Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,		Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
	8.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[ICANN-RA]		[ICANN-RA]
	Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,		Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
	"Registry Agreement", July 2017,		"Registry Agreement", July 2017,
	<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/		<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/
	agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>.		agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>.
	[ICANN-RDS]		[ICANN-RDS1]
	Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,		Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
	"Final Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD		"Final Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD
	Directory Services: A Next-Generation Registration		Directory Services: A Next-Generation Registration
	Directory Service (RDS)", June 2014,		Directory Service (RDS)", June 2014,
	<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/		<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/
	final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>.		final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>.
	[JSURL] "JSURL", 2016, <https://github.com/Sage/jsurl>.		[ICANN-RDS2]
			Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
			"Final Issue Report on a Next-Generation gTLD RDS to
			Replace WHOIS", October 2015,
			<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/
			final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf>.
			[JSURL] github.com, "JSURL", 2016,
			<https://github.com/Sage/jsurl>.
	[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,
	<http://www.restapitutorial.com/media/		<http://www.restapitutorial.com/media/
	RESTful_Best_Practices-v1_1.pdf>.		RESTful_Best_Practices-v1_1.pdf>.
	[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data		[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
	Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,		Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
	[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running		[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
	Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,		Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
	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>.
	[RISON] "Rison - Compact Data in URIs", 2017,		[RISON] github.com, "Rison - Compact Data in URIs", 2017,
	<https://github.com/Nanonid/rison>.		<https://github.com/Nanonid/rison>.
	[URLON] "URL Object Notation", 2017,		[URLON] github.com, "URL Object Notation", 2017,
	<https://github.com/cerebral/urlon>.		<https://github.com/cerebral/urlon>.
	Appendix A. Change Log		Appendix A. Change Log
	00: Initial version.		00: Initial version.
	01: Revised some sentences and references.		01: Revised some sentences and references.
	02: Added "entityEmail" and "entityAddr" path segments. Removed		02: Added "entityEmail" and "entityAddr" path segments. Removed
	"entityRole" path segment. Revised "Acknowledgements" section		"entityRole" path segment. Revised "Acknowledgements" section.
	03: Added "JSON in URLs" section		03: Added "JSON in URLs" section.
			04: Revised some sentences in "Introduction" section. Added
			"Privacy Considerations" section.
	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. 46 change blocks.
	113 lines changed or deleted		144 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/