draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-05.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: January 16, 2019 July 15, 2018 Expires: February 4, 2019 August 3, 2018
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-05
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 updates RFC 7484 by types are typically unstructured. This document updates RFC 7484 by
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 January 16, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2019.
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
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
2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . . . 8 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags . . . . . 8
3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . 10 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
skipping to change at page 3, line 24 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
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 HYPHEN-MINUS provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode HYPHEN-MINUS
character "-" (U+002D, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC character "-" (U+002D, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC
3986 [RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the 3986 [RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the
service provider. For example, a tag for a service provider service provider. For example, a tag for a service provider
identified by 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 In combination with the rdapConformance attribute described in
object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative server Section 4, service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP
for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from query object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative
server for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from
Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], an RDAP entity handle can be 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 HYPHEN-MINUS characters; elements. Handles can themselves contain HYPHEN-MINUS characters;
skipping to change at page 5, line 31 skipping to change at page 5, line 33
"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-YYY-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":
[ [
... ...
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
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 HYPHEN- There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN-
MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator
purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly
assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the
text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier. A text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier. A
client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid
service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result. service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result.
As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service
provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding rdapConformance value provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding an rdapConformance
to query responses as described in Section 4. value to query responses as described in Section 4.
The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons: The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons:
1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it 1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it
avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of
unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986] unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]
provided multiple options for consideration: 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 for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is used in entity handles for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is
commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will
reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The
remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used
as separators in entity handles. as separators in entity handles.
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags
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 contact
identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base information for the registered service provider identifiers,
RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. alphanumeric identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, and
base RDAP service URLs as shown in this example.
{ {
"version": "1.0", "version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ", "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values", "description": "RDAP bootstrap file for service provider object tags",
"services": [ "services": [
[ [
["YYYY"], ["contact@example.com"],
[ ["YYYY"],
"https://example.com/rdap/" [
] "https://example.com/rdap/"
], ]
[ ],
["ZZ54"], [
[ ["contact@example.org"],
"http://rdap.example.org/" ["ZZ54"],
] [
], "http://rdap.example.org/"
[ ]
["1754"], ],
[ [
"https://example.net/rdap/", ["contact@example.net"],
"http://example.net/rdap/" ["1754"],
] [
] "https://example.net/rdap/",
] "http://example.net/rdap/"
} ]
]
]
}
Figure 3 Figure 3
Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix
portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2 portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2
of RFC 5730 [RFC5730]. 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 8126 [RFC8126]. 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 an email address to be associated with
identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier) the registered service provider identifier, the requested service
and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the service provider identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an
provider identifier. identifier), and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the
service provider identifier.
4. RDAP Conformance 4. RDAP Conformance
RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST
indicate conformance with this specification by including an indicate conformance with this specification by including an
rdapConformance ([RFC7483]) value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0". The rdapConformance ([RFC7483]) value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0". The
information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions
Registry is described in Section 5.2. Registry is described in Section 5.2.
Example rdapConformance structure with extension specified: Example rdapConformance structure with extension specified:
skipping to change at page 10, line 19 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
"rdapConformance" : "rdapConformance" :
[ [
"rdap_level_0", "rdap_level_0",
"rdap_objectTag_level_0" "rdap_objectTag_level_0"
] ]
Figure 4 Figure 4
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registry IANA is requested to create the RDAP "Bootstrap Service Registry for
listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of Provider Object Tags" listed below and make it available as JSON
this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax objects. The contents of this registry is described in Section 3,
specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. with the formal syntax specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484].
5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure
Entries in this registry contain at least the following: Entries in this registry contain the following information:
o An email address that identifies a contact associated with the
registered RDAP service provider value.
o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider 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. The URLS are expected to supply the same data, but
they can differ in scheme or other components as required by the
service operator.
5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP
Extensions Registry: Extensions Registry:
Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag
Registry operator: Any Registry operator: Any
Published specification: This document. Published specification: This document.
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
skipping to change at page 12, line 7 skipping to change at page 12, line 14
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 HYPHEN-MINUS Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the HYPHEN-MINUS
separator character only. separator character only.
Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from This practice uses IANA as a well-known, central trusted authority to
an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find allow users to get RDAP data from an authoritative source, reducing
authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to the risk of sending queries to non-authoritative sources and
non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security divulging query information to unintended parties. Using TLS
properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to [RFC5246] to protect the connection to IANA allows the server to
access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246], authenticate itself as being operated by IANA and provides integrity
which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP protection for the resulting referral information, as well as
are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481]. providing privacy protection via data confidentiality. The
subsequent RDAP connection is performed as usual, and retains the
same security properties of the RDAP protocols themselves.
8. Acknowledgements 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, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors
would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been
implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for
several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for
skipping to change at page 14, line 4 skipping to change at page 14, line 13
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 6). 03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 6).
04: Keepalive refresh. 04: Keepalive refresh.
05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6. 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 02: Nit fixes. Added rdapConformance text, switched back to HYPHEN
MINUS, and added IANA registration instructions per working group MINUS, and added IANA registration instructions per working group
last call discussion. Updated suffix syntax reference from the last call discussion. Updated suffix syntax reference from the
IANA EPP ROID registry to RFC 5730 (which is what the IANA IANA EPP ROID registry to RFC 5730 (which is what the IANA
registry references). registry references).
03: Shephered writeup review updates to explain examples in 03: Shepherd writeup review updates to explain examples in
Section 2. Section 2.
04: AD review update to clarify query path construction. 04: AD review update to clarify query path construction.
05: IESG review update: object naming practice, revised an example
to include multiple separator HYPHEN-MINUS characters, revised
security considerations, revised IANA considerations, revised IANA
registry description and registration procedure to add email
address contact information.
Authors' Addresses 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. 24 change blocks. 
65 lines changed or deleted 80 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/