draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-00.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-01.txt 
Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft M. Martinelli Internet-Draft M. Martinelli
Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Expires: August 5, 2019 February 1, 2019 Expires: October 13, 2019 April 11, 2019
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-00 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-01
Abstract Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include
capabilities to request partial responses. In fact, according to the capabilities to request partial responses. In fact, according to the
user authorization, the server can only return full responses. user authorization, the server can only return full responses.
Partial responses capability, especially in the case of search Partial responses capability, especially in the case of search
queries, could bring benefits to both clients and servers. This queries, could bring benefits to both clients and servers. This
document describes a RDAP query extension that allows clients to document describes a RDAP query extension that allows clients to
specify their preference for obtaining a partial response. specify their preference for obtaining a partial response.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 August 5, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
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
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . . . . . . 3 2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . . . . . . 3
3. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Brief Field Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Subsetting Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Full Field Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Subsetting Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Dealing with Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Basic Field Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The use of partial response in RESTful API ([REST]) design is very The use of partial response in RESTful API ([REST]) design is very
common. The rationale is quite simple: instead of returning objects common. The rationale is quite simple: instead of returning objects
in API responses with all data fields, only a subset is returned. in API responses with all data fields, only a subset is returned.
The benefit is obvious: less data transferred over the network mean The benefit is obvious: less data transferred over the network mean
less bandwidth usage, faster server response, less CPU time spent less bandwidth usage, faster server response, less CPU time spent
both on the server and the client, as well as less memory usage on both on the server and the client, as well as less memory usage on
the client. the client.
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
full response ([RFC7483]). Furthermore, servers cannot define the full response ([RFC7483]). Furthermore, servers cannot define the
limits of the results according to partial responses and this causes limits of the results according to partial responses and this causes
strong inefficiencies. strong inefficiencies.
The protocol described in this specification extends RDAP search The protocol described in this specification extends RDAP search
capabilities to enable partial responses, by adding a new query capabilities to enable partial responses, by adding a new query
parameter and using a RESTful web service. The service is parameter and using a RESTful web service. The service is
implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) ([RFC7230]) implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) ([RFC7230])
and the conventions described in RFC 7480 ([RFC7480]). and the conventions described in RFC 7480 ([RFC7480]).
Impact on the current state of RDAP implementation is low.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 ([RFC2119]). document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 ([RFC2119]).
2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation 2. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation
Looking at the implementation experiences described above, two Looking at the implementation experiences described above, two
approaches to the implementation of partial response can be detected: approaches to the implementation of partial response can be detected:
o the client declares explicitly the data fields to get back; o the client declares explicitly the data fields to get back;
o the client declares a name identifying a server pre-defined set of o the client declares a name identifying a server pre-defined set of
data fields. data fields.
The former is more flexible than the latter, because clients can The former is more flexible than the latter, because clients can
specify all the data fields they need. Anyway, it has some specify all the data fields they need. However, it has some
drawbacks: drawbacks:
o Fields have to be declared according to a given syntax. This is a o Fields have to be declared according to a given syntax. This is a
simple task when the data structure of the object is flat, but it simple task when the data structure of the object is flat, but it
is much more difficult when the object has a tree structure like is much more difficult when the object has a tree structure like
the one of a JSON object. The presence of arrays and deep nested the one of a JSON object. The presence of arrays and deep nested
objects contribute to complicate both the syntax definition of the objects contribute to complicate both the syntax definition of the
query and, consequently, the processing phase on the server side. query and, consequently, the processing phase on the server side.
o Clients should perfectly know the returned object to avoid cases o Clients should perfectly know the returned object to avoid cases
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 9
to establish the results limits. to establish the results limits.
Finally, considering that there is not a real need for RDAP users to Finally, considering that there is not a real need for RDAP users to
have the maximum flexibility in defining all the possible sets of have the maximum flexibility in defining all the possible sets of
logically connected fields (for example, users interested in domains logically connected fields (for example, users interested in domains
usually need to know the status, the creation date, the expire date usually need to know the status, the creation date, the expire date
of each domain), the latter approach is preferred. of each domain), the latter approach is preferred.
3. RDAP Path Segment Specification 3. RDAP Path Segment Specification
The new query parameter is an OPTIONAL extension of search path The path segment defined in this section is an OPTIONAL extension of
segments defined in RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). The query parameter is search path segments defined in RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). This document
"fieldSet" whose value is a string identifying a server pre-defined defines an RDAP query parameter, "fieldSet", whose value is a string
set of fields (Figure 2). Values REQUIRED to be implemented are: identifying a server pre-defined set of fields (Figure 2).
o id: the server provides only the "objectClassName" field and the
key field ("handle" for entities, "ldhName" for domains and
nameservers). This field set can be used when the client wants to
obtain a collection of object identifiers (Figure 3);
o brief: it contains the fields that can be included in a "short"
response. This field set can be used when the client is asking
for a subset of the full response which gives a basic knowledge of
each object. The fields are those defined in Section 3.1;
o full: it contains all the information the server can provide for a
particular object. Additional considerations are reported in
Section 3.2.
Fields belonging to brief and full field sets should be provided
according to users access levels. RDAP providers MAY add any
property providing service information. Servers MAY implement
additional field sets not included in the list above. Servers SHOULD
also define a "default" field set.
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=id https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=afieldset
Figure 2: Example of RDAP search query reporting the fieldSet Figure 2: Example of RDAP search query reporting the "fieldSet"
parameter parameter
{ 3.1. Subsetting Metadata
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0",
],
...
"domainSearchResults": [
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example1.com"
},
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example2.com"
},
...
]
}
Figure 3: Example of RDAP response according to the "id" field set
3.1. Brief Field Set
In order to ensure the highest degree of interoperability, the brief
field set should contain the most commonly used data elements. Based
on the assumption that an RDAP server will return almost the same
data as those replied by the corresponding Whois service, the
elements included in the brief field set could be those identified in
RFC 7485 ([RFC7485]) as mostly supported (i.e. by more than one third
of contacted services).
Therefore, RDAP servers are RECOMMENDED to return the following
elements in the brief field set (Table 1):
+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Object | Whois property | RDAP property |
| class | | |
+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Domain | Domain Name | ldhName |
| | Domain Status | status |
| | Creation Date | event whose eventAction type is |
| | | "registration" |
| | Expiration Date | event whose eventAction type is |
| | | "expiration" |
| | Update Date | event whose eventAction type is |
| | | "last update" |
| | | |
| Nameserver | Name Server | ldhName |
| | | |
| Entity | Entity ID | handle |
| | Entity Name | vcard fn |
| | Entity | vcard org |
| | Organization | |
| | Entity Email | vcard email |
| | Entity Phone | vcard tel with type="voice" |
| | Entity Fax | vcard tel with type="fax" |
| | Entity Country | country name in vcard adr |
| | Entity City | locality in vcard adr |
| | Entity Postal | postal code in vcard adr |
| | Code | |
+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
Table 1: Elements included in brief field set
The term "Entity" refers to any kind of contact.
3.2. Full Field Set
With regards to the full field set, some additional considerations
can be made about how second level objects could be represented. In
fact, since the topmost objects could be returned according to
different field sets, the same thing could go for their related
objects. As a consequence, the full response could range from the
one containing no relationship up to a response where each related
object is in turn in full format.
FOR DISCUSSION: Should this specification furtherly detail the full
field set according to the different representations of the related
objects?
3.3. Subsetting Metadata
According to most advanced principles in REST design, collectively According to most advanced principles in REST design, collectively
known as HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State) known as HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State)
([HATEOAS]), a client entering a REST application through an initial ([HATEOAS]), a client entering a REST application through an initial
URI should use the server-provided links to dynamically discover URI should use the server-provided links to dynamically discover
available actions and access the resources it needs. In this way, available actions and access the resources it needs. In this way,
the client is not requested to have prior knowledge of the service the client is not requested to have prior knowledge of the service
and, consequently, to hard code the URIs of different resources. and, consequently, to hard code the URIs of different resources.
This would allow the server to make URI changes as the API evolves This would allow the server to make URI changes as the API evolves
without breaking the clients. Definitively, a REST service should be without breaking the clients. Definitively, a REST service should be
self-descriptive as much as possible. as self-descriptive as possible.
Therefore, the implementation of the query parameter described in Therefore, servers implementing the query parameter described in this
this specification recommends servers to provide additional specification SHOULD provide additional information in their
information in their responses about the available field sets. Such responses about the available field sets. Such information is
information is collected in a new data structures named collected in a new data structure named "subsetting_metadata"
"subsetting_metadata" containing the following fields: containing the following properties:
o "currentFieldSet": the value of fieldSet parameter as specified in o "currentFieldSet": "String" (REQUIRED) either the value of
the query string; "fieldSet" parameter as specified in the query string or the field
set applied by default;
o "availableFieldSets": an array of objects each one describing an o "availableFieldSets": "AvailableFieldSet[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of
available field set: objects each one describing an alternate available field set.
Members are:
* "name": the field set name; * "name": "String" (REQUIRED) the field set name;
* "description": a human-readable description of the field set; * "default": "Boolean" (REQUIRED) whether the field set is
* "default": whether the field set is applied by default; applied by default;
* "links": an array of links as described in RFC 8288 ([RFC8288]) * "description": "String" (OPTIONAL) a human-readable description
containing the query string that applies the field set. of the field set;
Both "currentFieldSet" and "availableFieldSets" are OPTIONAL fields * "links": "Link[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of links as described in
of the "subsetting_metadata" structure. In particular, the RFC 8288 ([RFC8288]) containing the query string that applies
"currentFieldSet" field is provided when the query string contains a the field set.
valid value for fieldSet parameter, while the "availableFieldSets"
field SHOULD be provided when the fieldSet parameter is missing in
the query string or when it is present and the server implements more
than a field set for the RDAP object. At least the "name" field is
REQUIRED in each item of the "availableFieldSets" array while the
other fields are RECOMMENDED.
3.3.1. Representing Subsetting Links 3.1.1. Representing Subsetting Links
An RDAP server MAY use the "links" array of the "subsetting_metadata" An RDAP server MAY use the "links" array of the "subsetting_metadata"
section to provide ready-made references ([RFC8288]) to the available section to provide ready-made references ([RFC8288]) to the available
field set (Figure 4). Each link represents a reference to an field sets (Figure 3). Each link represents a reference to an
alternate view of the results. alternate view of the results.
{ {
"rdapConformance": [ "rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0", "rdap_level_0",
"subsetting_level_0" "subsetting_level_0"
], ],
... ...
"subsetting_metadata": { "subsetting_metadata": {
"currentFieldSet": "brief", "currentFieldSet": "afieldset",
"availableFieldSets": [ "availableFieldSets": [
{ {
"name": "id", "name": "anotherfieldset",
"description": "Contains "objectClassName" and the key field", "description": "Contains some fields",
"default": false, "default": false,
"links": [ "links": [
{ {
"value": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com "value": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com
&fieldSet=brief", &fieldSet=afieldset",
"rel": "alternate", "rel": "alternate",
"href": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com "href": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com
&fieldSet=id", &fieldSet=anotherfieldset",
"title": "Result Subset Link", "title": "Result Subset Link",
"type": "application/rdap+json" "type": "application/rdap+json"
}, },
... ...
] ]
}, },
"domainSearchResults": [ "domainSearchResults": [
... ...
] ]
} }
Figure 4: Example of a "subsetting_metadata" instance Figure 3: Example of a "subsetting_metadata" instance
4. RDAP Conformance 4. Dealing with Relationships
Some additional considerations can be made about how second level
objects could be represented within a field set. In fact, since the
topmost objects could be returned according to different field sets,
the same thing could go for their related objects. As a consequence,
the response could contain either no relationship or associated
objects which are in turn provided according to a field set.
5. Basic Field Sets
In order to improve interoperability between clients and servers, the
name, as well as the list of fields for each field set, should be
shared by most of RDAP providers. This section defines three basic
field sets which servers MAY implement to facilitate their
interaction with clients:
o "id": the server provides only the key field ("handle" for
entities, "ldhName" for domains and nameservers). This field set
could be used when the client wants to simply obtain a collection
of object identifiers (Figure 4);
o "brief": it contains the fields that can be included in a "short"
response. This field set could be used when the client is asking
for a subset of the full response which gives a basic knowledge of
each object;
o "full": it contains all the information the server can provide for
a particular object.
The "objectClassName" field is implicitly included in each of the
above field sets. RDAP providers MAY add any property providing
service information.
Fields belonging to "brief" and "full" field sets could be returned
according to users access levels.
{
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0",
],
...
"domainSearchResults": [
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example1.com"
},
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example2.com"
},
...
]
}
Figure 4: Example of RDAP response according to the "id" field set
6. RDAP Conformance
Servers returning the "subsetting_metadata" section in their Servers returning the "subsetting_metadata" section in their
responses MUST include "subsetting_level_0" in the rdapConformance responses MUST include "subsetting_level_0" in the rdapConformance
array. array.
5. Implementation Status 7. 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 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
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. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics
of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it
Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/
Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries
using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD.
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: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
6. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Search query typically requires more server resources (such as Search query typically requires more server resources (such as
memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to lookup memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to lookup
query. This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion and query. This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion and
subsequent denial of service due to abuse. Partial response can subsequent denial of service due to abuse. Partial response can
contribute together with other strategies (e.g. restricting search contribute together with other strategies (e.g. restricting search
functionality, limiting the rate of search requests, truncating and functionality, limiting the rate of search requests, truncating and
paging results) to mitigate this risk. paging results) to mitigate this risk.
Furthermore, partial response can help RDAP operators to regulate Furthermore, partial response can help RDAP operators to regulate
access control based on client identification, implemented by HTTP access control based on client identification, implemented by HTTP
basic or digest authentication as described in RFC 7481 ([RFC7481]) authentication mechanisms as described in RFC 7481 ([RFC7481]). In
or by a federated authentication system fact, RDAP operators can follow different, not alternative,
([I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-openid]). In fact, RDAP operators can follow approaches to the building of responses according to the user access
different, not alternative, approaches to the building of responses levels:
according to the user access levels:
o the list of fields for each set (except "id") can be different o the list of fields for each set can be different according to the
according to the user access levels. At present, this is already user access levels;
implemented for the full response, but it could be done also for
the other defined field sets. In some cases, it might happen that
brief and full field sets are exactly the same;
o some field sets could be available only to some users. In this o some field sets could be available only to some users.
case, servers could define additional field sets to those
indicated above ("id", "brief", "full"), making them available
only to users with specific access levels.
Servers can also define different results limits according to the Servers can also define different results limits according to the
available field sets, so a more flexible truncation strategy can be available field sets, so a more flexible truncation strategy can be
realized and users can take advantage of a more efficient results realized.
paging implementation ([I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging]).
Therefore, the new parameter presented in this document provides the Therefore, the new query parameter presented in this document
RDAP operators with a way to implement a secure server without provides the RDAP operators with a way to implement a secure server
penalizing its efficiency. without penalizing its efficiency.
7. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck for his The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck for his
contribution to this document. contribution to this document.
9. References 11. References
9.1. Normative References 11.1. 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>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 48
[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>.
[RFC7485] Zhou, L., Kong, N., Shen, S., Sheng, S., and A. Servin,
"Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects",
RFC 7485, DOI 10.17487/RFC7485, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7485>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, [RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
9.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[CQL] Whitaker, G., "Catnap Query Language Reference", September [CQL] Whitaker, G., "Catnap Query Language Reference", September
2017, <https://github.com/gregwhitaker/catnap/wiki/ 2017, <https://github.com/gregwhitaker/catnap/wiki/
Catnap-Query-Language-Reference>. Catnap-Query-Language-Reference>.
[FACEBOOK] [FACEBOOK]
facebook.com, "facebook for developers - Using the Graph facebook.com, "facebook for developers - Using the Graph
API", July 2017, <https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ API", July 2017, <https://developers.facebook.com/docs/
graph-api/using-graph-api>. graph-api/using-graph-api>.
[GOOGLE] google.com, "Making APIs Faster: Introducing Partial [GOOGLE] google.com, "Making APIs Faster: Introducing Partial
Response and Partial Update", March 2010, Response and Partial Update", March 2010,
<http://googlecode.blogspot.it/2010/03/ <http://googlecode.blogspot.it/2010/03/
making-apis-faster-introducing-partial.html>. making-apis-faster-introducing-partial.html>.
[HATEOAS] Jedrzejewski, B., "HATEOAS - a simple explanation", 2018, [HATEOAS] Jedrzejewski, B., "HATEOAS - a simple explanation", 2018,
<https://www.e4developer.com/2018/02/16/ <https://www.e4developer.com/2018/02/16/
hateoas-simple-explanation/>. hateoas-simple-explanation/>.
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-openid]
Hollenbeck, S., "Federated Authentication for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) using OpenID
Connect", draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-00 (work in
progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging]
Loffredo, M., Martinelli, M., and S. Hollenbeck,
"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters
for Result Sorting and Paging", draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
sorting-and-paging-00 (work in progress), February 2019.
[LINKEDIN] [LINKEDIN]
linkedin.com, "Java One 2009: Building Consistent RESTful linkedin.com, "Java One 2009: Building Consistent RESTful
APIs in a High Performance Environment", July 2009, APIs in a High Performance Environment", July 2009,
<https://blog.linkedin.com/2009/07/08/brandon-duncan-java- <https://blog.linkedin.com/2009/07/08/brandon-duncan-java-
one-building-consistent-restful-apis-in-a-high- one-building-consistent-restful-apis-in-a-high-
performance-environment>. performance-environment>.
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", 2000, Network-based Software Architectures", 2000,
<http://www.restapitutorial.com/media/ <http://www.restapitutorial.com/media/
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 12, line 9
[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>.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
00: Initial working group version ported from draft-loffredo-regext- 00: Initial working group version ported from draft-loffredo-regext-
rdap-partial-response-03 rdap-partial-response-03
01: Removed "FOR DISCUSSION" items. Changed the basic field sets
from REQUIRED to OPTIONAL. Removed the definition of fields
included in "brief" field set. Provided a more detailed
description of "subsetting_metadata" structure. Removed some
references.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mario Loffredo Mario Loffredo
IIT-CNR/Registro.it IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Via Moruzzi,1 Via Moruzzi,1
Pisa 56124 Pisa 56124
IT IT
Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it
Maurizio Martinelli Maurizio Martinelli
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
204 lines changed or deleted 138 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/