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/