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/