draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-05.txt   rfc8521.txt 
Registration Protocols Extensions S. Hollenbeck Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft Verisign Labs Request for Comments: 8521 Verisign Labs
Updates: 7484 (if approved) A. Newton BCP: 221 A. Newton
Intended status: Best Current Practice ARIN Updates: 7484 ARIN
Expires: February 4, 2019 August 3, 2018 Category: Best Current Practice November 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
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
describing an operational practice that can be used to add structure describing an operational practice that can be used to add structure
to RDAP identifiers that makes it possible to identify the to RDAP identifiers and that makes it possible to identify the
authoritative 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 memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8521.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags . . . . . 8 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags . . . . . 9
3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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
"com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service "com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service
providers. providers.
As noted in Section 9 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484], the method does not As noted in Section 9 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484], the method does not
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 and 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", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Object Naming Practice 2. Object Naming Practice
skipping to change at page 3, line 29 skipping to change at page 3, line 50
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".
In combination with the rdapConformance attribute described in In combination with the rdapConformance attribute described in
Section 4, service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP Section 4, service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP
query object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative query object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative
server for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from 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 to allow 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;
the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN- the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN-
MINUS character in the tagged identifier. The service provider MINUS character in the tagged identifier. The service provider
identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry. identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry.
The base URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP The base URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP
query 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 RDAP query URL is formed using URL "https://example.com/rdap/". The RDAP query URL is formed using
the base RDAP URL and entity path segment described in Section 3.1.5 the base RDAP URL and entity path segment described in Section 3.1.5
of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], using "XXXX-YYY" as the value of the handle of RFC 7482 [RFC7482] and using "XXXX-YYY" as the value of the handle
identifier. The complete RDAP query URL becomes identifier. The complete RDAP query URL becomes
"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 ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from examples ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from
Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle identifiers Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle identifiers
have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC" have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC",
respectively: respectively:
{ {
"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" :
[ [
... ...
], ],
skipping to change at page 7, line 51 skipping to change at page 8, line 25
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 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
text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier. A that the text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider
client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid identifier. A client that queries the IANA registry for what they
service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result. assume is a valid service provider will likely receive an unexpected,
As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service invalid result. As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character
provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding an rdapConformance as a service provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding an
value to query responses as described in Section 4. rdapConformance 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 Provider Object Tags 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 contact [RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains contact
information for the registered service provider identifiers, information for the registered service provider identifiers,
skipping to change at page 10, line 9 skipping to change at page 10, line 20
Registration requests include an email address to be associated with Registration requests include an email address to be associated with
the registered service provider identifier, the requested service the registered service provider identifier, the requested service
provider identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an provider identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an
identifier), and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the identifier), and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the
service provider identifier. 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: The following is an example rdapConformance structure with the
extension specified.
"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 Service Registry for IANA has created the RDAP "Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider
Provider Object Tags" listed below and make it available as JSON Object Tags" listed below and made it available as a JSON object.
objects. The contents of this registry is described in Section 3, The contents of this registry are described in Section 3; the formal
with the formal syntax specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. syntax is specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484].
5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure
Entries in this registry contain the following information: Entries in this registry contain the following information:
o An email address that identifies a contact associated with the o an email address that identifies a contact associated with the
registered RDAP service provider value. 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. The URLS are expected to supply the same data, but registration. The URLs are expected to supply the same data, but
they can differ in scheme or other components as required by the they can differ in scheme or other components as required by the
service operator. service operator.
5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP IANA has registered the following value in the "RDAP Extensions"
Extensions Registry: 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>
Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for
structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping. structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping.
6. Implementation Status 6. Security Considerations
NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
to publication as an RFC.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
6.1. Verisign Labs
Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs
Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/
Description: This implementation includes support for domain
registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country
code top-level domains. Client authentication is required to
receive entity information in query responses.
Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research
implementation.
Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com
6.2. OpenRDAP
Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP
Location: https://www.openrdap.org
Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity
handles with a service provider tag. A test Bootstrap Services
Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one.
Level of Maturity: Alpha
Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the HYPHEN-MINUS
separator character only.
Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org
7. Security Considerations
This practice uses IANA as a well-known, central trusted authority to
allow users to get RDAP data from an authoritative source, reducing
the risk of sending queries to non-authoritative sources and
divulging query information to unintended parties. Using TLS
[RFC5246] to protect the connection to IANA allows the server to
authenticate itself as being operated by IANA and provides integrity
protection for the resulting referral information, as well as
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
The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for This practice uses IANA as a well-known, centrally trusted authority
their contributions to the development of this document: Tom to allow users to get RDAP data from an authoritative source, which
Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors reduces the risk of sending queries to non-authoritative sources and
would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) divulging query information to unintended parties. Using TLS 1.2
operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been [RFC5246] or TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], which obsoletes TLS 1.2, to protect
implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for the connection to IANA allows the server to authenticate itself as
several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for being operated by IANA and provides integrity protection for the
the development of this document. resulting referral information, as well as provides privacy
protection via data confidentiality. The subsequent RDAP connection
is performed as usual and retains the same security properties of the
RDAP protocols themselves as described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481].
9. References 7. References
9.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 12, line 31
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References 7.2. 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 13, line 41 skipping to change at page 13, line 10
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[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 [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Appendix A. Change Log Acknowledgements
00: Initial version. The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT. their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors
provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been
example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for
Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements. several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for
02: Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE. the development of this document.
Clarity updates and fixed an example handle. Added text to
describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in
entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters.
03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 6).
04: Keepalive refresh.
05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6.
00: Initial working group version.
01: Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the
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).
03: Shepherd writeup review updates to explain examples in
Section 2.
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 United States of America
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Andrew Lee Newton Andrew Lee Newton
American Registry for Internet Numbers American Registry for Internet Numbers
PO Box 232290 PO Box 232290
Centreville, VA 20120 Centreville, VA 20120
US United States of America
Email: andy@arin.net Email: andy@arin.net
URI: http://www.arin.net URI: http://www.arin.net
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
179 lines changed or deleted 91 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/