draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-01.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-02.txt 
Registration Protocols Extensions S. Hollenbeck Registration Protocols Extensions S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft Verisign Labs Internet-Draft Verisign Labs
Updates: 7484 (if approved) A. Newton Updates: 7484 (if approved) A. Newton
Intended status: Best Current Practice ARIN Intended status: Best Current Practice ARIN
Expires: September 27, 2018 March 26, 2018 Expires: October 29, 2018 April 27, 2018
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-01 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-02
Abstract Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that
can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing
domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries. The domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries. The
method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for
processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries. This processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries. This
limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query
types are typically unstructured. This document describes an types are typically unstructured. This document updates RFC 7484 by
operational practice that can be used to add structure to RDAP describing an operational practice that can be used to add structure
identifiers that makes it possible to identify the authoritative to RDAP identifiers that makes it possible to identify the
server for additional RDAP queries. authoritative server for additional RDAP queries.
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 September 27, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
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
2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . . . 8 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . . . 8
3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . 9 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . 10
5.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method
([RFC7484]) that can be used to identify the authoritative server for ([RFC7484]) that can be used to identify the authoritative server for
processing domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number processing domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number
(ASN) queries. This method works because each of these data elements (ASN) queries. This method works because each of these data elements
is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the
element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP
service provider. For example, domain names include labels (such as service provider. For example, domain names include labels (such as
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing
entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using
certain search patterns. This limitation exists because the certain search patterns. This limitation exists because the
identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a
way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific
service provider. This document describes an operational practice service provider. This document describes an operational practice
that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers that makes it that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers that makes it
possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP
queries. 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 2. Object Naming Practice
Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it
possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP
query using the method described in RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. A service query using the method described in RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. A service
provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode TILDE character provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode HYPHEN-MINUS
"~" (U+007E, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC 3986 character "-" (U+002D, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC
[RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the service 3986 [RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the
provider. For example, a tag for a service provider identified by service provider. For example, a tag for a service provider
the string value "ARIN" is represented as "~ARIN". identified by the string value "ARIN" is represented as "-ARIN".
Service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP query Service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP query
object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative server object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative server
for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from
Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], an RDAP entity handle can be 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. constructed that allows an RDAP client to bootstrap an entity query.
The following identifier is used to find information for the entity The following identifier is used to find information for the entity
associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN": associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN":
XXXX~ARIN XXXX-ARIN
Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this
identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier
elements. Handles can themselves contain TILDE characters; the elements. Handles can themselves contain HYPHEN-MINUS characters;
service provider identifier is found following the last TILDE the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN-
character in the tagged identifier. The service provider identifier MINUS character in the tagged identifier. The service provider
is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry. The base identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry.
URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP query The base URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP
path segment. For example, if the base RDAP URL query path segment. For example, if the base RDAP URL
"https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service provider "https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service provider
"YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged entity "YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged entity
identifier "XXXX~YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service identifier "XXXX-YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service
provider ("YYYY") identifiers. The service provider identifier provider ("YYYY") identifiers. The service provider identifier
"YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP "YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP
URL "https://example.com/rdap/". The base RDAP URL is concatenated URL "https://example.com/rdap/". The base RDAP URL is concatenated
to the entity handle to create a complete RDAP query path segment of to the entity handle to create a complete RDAP query path segment of
"https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX~YYYY". "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY".
Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured
potential query identifiers in RDAP responses. Consider these elided potential query identifiers in RDAP responses. Consider these elided
examples from Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle examples from Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle
identifiers have been tagged with a service provider tag: identifiers have been tagged with a service provider tag:
{ {
"objectClassName" : "domain", "objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX~RIR", "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa", "ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"nameservers" : "nameservers" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"secureDNS": "secureDNS":
{ {
... ...
}, },
"remarks" : "remarks" :
skipping to change at page 4, line 30 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
... ...
], ],
"events" : "events" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"entities" : "entities" :
[ [
{ {
"objectClassName" : "entity", "objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX~RIR", "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"vcardArray": "vcardArray":
[ [
... ...
], ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ], "roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" : "remarks" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"links" : "links" :
skipping to change at page 4, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
"roles" : [ "registrant" ], "roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" : "remarks" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"links" : "links" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"events" : "events" :
[ [
... ...
] ]
} }
], ],
"network" : "network" :
{ {
"objectClassName" : "ip network", "objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXXX~RIR", "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"startAddress" : "192.0.2.0", "startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress" : "192.0.2.255", "endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
"ipVersion" : "v4", "ipVersion" : "v4",
"name": "NET-RTR-1", "name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION", "type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country" : "AU", "country" : "AU",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY~RIR", "parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
"status" : [ "active" ] "status" : [ "active" ]
} }
} }
Figure 1 Figure 1
{ {
"objectClassName" : "domain", "objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX~DNR", "handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example", "ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example", "unicodeName" : "foo.example",
"variants" : "variants" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ], "status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
"publicIds": "publicIds":
[ [
... ...
], ],
"nameservers" : "nameservers" :
[ [
{ {
"objectClassName" : "nameserver", "objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX~DNR", "handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com", "ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ], "status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" : "ipAddresses" :
{ {
... ...
}, },
"remarks" : "remarks" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"links" : "links" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"events" : "events" :
[ [
... ...
skipping to change at page 6, line 11 skipping to change at page 6, line 19
[ [
... ...
], ],
"events" : "events" :
[ [
... ...
] ]
}, },
{ {
"objectClassName" : "nameserver", "objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX~DNR", "handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com", "ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ], "status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" : "ipAddresses" :
{ {
... ...
}, },
"remarks" : "remarks" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 12
], ],
"port43" : "whois.example.net", "port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" : "events" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
"entities" : "entities" :
[ [
{ {
"objectClassName" : "entity", "objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX~ABC", "handle" : "XXXX-ABC",
"vcardArray": "vcardArray":
[ [
... ...
], ],
"status" : [ "validated", "locked" ], "status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ], "roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" : "remarks" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
skipping to change at page 7, line 36 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
} }
Figure 2 Figure 2
As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can
contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references
SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider
tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to
identify a service provider. identify a service provider.
There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the TILDE There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN-
character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator purposes in MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator
an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly assuming purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly
that a TILDE character represents a separator and the text that assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the
follows TILDE is a service provider identifier. A client that text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier. A
queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid service client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid
provider will likely receive an unexpected invalid result. As a service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result.
consequence, the TILDE character MUST NOT be used in an entity handle As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service
for any purpose other than to separate an object identifier from a provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding rdapConformance value
service provider tag. to query responses as described in Section 4.
The TILDE character was chosen as a separator for two reasons: 1) to The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons:
avoid collisions with characters that are commonly found in entity 1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it
handles, and 2) to avoid collisons with URI-reserved characters. The avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of
list of unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]
[RFC3986] provided multiple options for consideration as follows: provided multiple options for consideration:
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly
used in entity handles. The "-" (HYPHEN MINUS, U+002D) and "_" (LOW used in entity handles for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is
LINE, U+005F) characters were also excluded as a result of being commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will
observed in current operational use. The TILDE character was chosen reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The
over the "." (FULL STOP, U+002E) character due to the authors' remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used
belief that it is less likely to be in use in entity handles as of as separators in entity handles.
the time of this writing.
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers
The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is
represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484 represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484
[RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains alphanumeric [RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains alphanumeric
identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base
RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. RDAP URLs, as shown in this example.
{ {
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 34
[ [
"https://example.net/rdap/", "https://example.net/rdap/",
"http://example.net/rdap/" "http://example.net/rdap/"
] ]
] ]
] ]
} }
Figure 3 Figure 3
Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the syntax Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix
specified in the IANA registry of Extensible Provisioning Protocol portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2
(EPP) Repository Identifiers [1]. of RFC 5730 [RFC5730].
3.1. Registration Procedure 3.1. Registration Procedure
The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Provider First Served" policy defined in RFC 8126 [RFC8126]. Provider
identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request. identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request.
Registration requests include the requested service provider Registration requests include the requested service provider
identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier) identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier)
and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the service and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the service
provider identifier. provider identifier.
4. IANA Considerations 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 Services Registry IANA is requested to create the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registry
listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of
this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax
specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484].
4.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers
Entries in this registry contain at least the following: Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider
being registered. being registered.
o One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this o One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration. registration.
5. Implementation Status 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>
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 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 12 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
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
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
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. Verisign Labs 6.1. Verisign Labs
Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs
Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/ Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/
Description: This implementation includes support for domain Description: This implementation includes support for domain
registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country
code top-level domains. Client authentication is required to code top-level domains. Client authentication is required to
receive entity information in query responses. receive entity information in query responses.
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: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com
5.2. OpenRDAP 6.2. OpenRDAP
Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP
Location: https://www.openrdap.org Location: https://www.openrdap.org
Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity
handles with a service provider tag. A test Bootstrap Services handles with a service provider tag. A test Bootstrap Services
Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one. Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one.
Level of Maturity: Alpha Level of Maturity: Alpha
Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the TILDE separator Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the HYPHEN-MINUS
character only. separator character only.
Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from
an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find
authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to
non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security
properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to
access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246], access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246],
which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP
are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481]. are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481].
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to the development of this document: Tom their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
Harrison, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors would like to Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors
recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) operators (AFRINIC, would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been implementing and using operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been
the practice of tagging handle identifiers for several years. Their implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for
experience provided significant inspiration for the development of several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for
this document. the development of this document.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <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 [RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>.
8.2. Informative References [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 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 15 skipping to change at page 13, line 37
[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>.
[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>.
8.3. URIs
[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-repository-ids/epp-
repository-ids.xhtml#epp-repository-ids-1
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
00: Initial version. 00: Initial version.
01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT. 01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT.
Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service
provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom
Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network
example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by
Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements. Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements.
02: Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE. 02: Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE.
Clarity updates and fixed an example handle. Added text to Clarity updates and fixed an example handle. Added text to
describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in
entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters. entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters.
03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 5). 03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 6).
04: Keepalive refresh. 04: Keepalive refresh.
05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 5. 05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6.
00: Initial working group version. 00: Initial working group version.
01: Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the 01: Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the
separator character. 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).
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Scott Hollenbeck Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way 12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190 Reston, VA 20190
USA USA
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
96 lines changed or deleted 148 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/