draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-06.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-07.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: September 4, 2020 March 3, 2020 Expires: September 14, 2020 March 13, 2020
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-06 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-07
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. A user authorization, the server can only return full responses. A
partial response capability, especially in the case of search partial response 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 an RDAP query extension that allows clients to document describes an 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 September 4, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Subsetting Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Subsetting Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Dealing with Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Dealing with Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Field Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Basic Field Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. APNIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. APNIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . 11
Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . 12
A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 of fields in
The benefit is obvious: less data transferred over the network means each result object is returned. The benefit is obvious: less data
less bandwidth usage, faster server response, less CPU time spent transferred over the network means less bandwidth usage, faster
both on the server and the client, as well as less memory usage on server response, less CPU time spent both on the server and the
the client. client, as well as less memory usage on the client.
Several leading APIs providers (e.g. LinkedIn [LINKEDIN], Facebook Several leading APIs providers (e.g. LinkedIn [LINKEDIN], Facebook
[FACEBOOK], Google [GOOGLE]) implement the partial response feature [FACEBOOK], Google [GOOGLE]) implement the partial response feature
by providing an optional query parameter by which users require the by providing an optional query parameter by which users require the
fields they wish to receive. Partial response is also considered a fields they wish to receive. Partial response is also considered a
leading principle by many best practices guidelines in REST APIs leading principle by many best practices guidelines in REST APIs
implementation ([REST-API1], [REST-API2]) in order to improve implementation ([REST-API1], [REST-API2]) in order to improve
performance, save on bandwidth and possibly accelerate the overall performance, save on bandwidth and possibly accelerate the overall
interaction. In other contexts, for example in digital libraries and interaction. In other contexts, for example in digital libraries and
bibliographic catalogues, servers can provide responses according to bibliographic catalogues, servers can provide responses according to
skipping to change at page 4, line 32 skipping to change at page 4, line 32
* "name": "String" (REQUIRED) the field set name; * "name": "String" (REQUIRED) the field set name;
* "default": "Boolean" (REQUIRED) whether the field set is * "default": "Boolean" (REQUIRED) whether the field set is
applied by default; applied by default;
* "description": "String" (OPTIONAL) a human-readable description * "description": "String" (OPTIONAL) a human-readable description
of the field set; of the field set;
* "links": "Link[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of links as described in * "links": "Link[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of links as described in
RFC 8288 ([RFC8288]) containing the query string that applies RFC 8288 ([RFC8288]) containing the query string that applies
the field set. the field set.
2.1.1. Representing Subsetting Links 2.1.1. RDAP Conformance
Servers returning the "subsetting_metadata" section in their
responses MUST include "subsetting_level_0" in the rdapConformance
array.
2.1.2. 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"
element to provide ready-made references ([RFC8288]) to the available element to provide ready-made references ([RFC8288]) to the available
field sets (Figure 2). Each link represents a reference to an field sets (Figure 2). 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"
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
Figure 3: Example of RDAP response according to the "id" field set Figure 3: Example of RDAP response according to the "id" field set
5. Negative Answers 5. Negative Answers
Each request including an unsupported field set SHOULD obtain an HTTP Each request including an unsupported field set SHOULD obtain an HTTP
400 (Bad Request) response code. 400 (Bad Request) response code.
Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding
the negative answer in the HTTP entity body. the negative answer in the HTTP entity body.
6. RDAP Conformance 6. Implementation Status
Servers returning the "subsetting_metadata" section in their
responses MUST include "subsetting_level_0" in the rdapConformance
array.
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 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
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".
7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 6.1. 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 .it public test environment. using data from .it public test environment.
Level of Maturity: This is an "alpha" test implementation. Level of Maturity: This is an "alpha" test 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
7.2. APNIC 6.2. APNIC
Responsible Organization: Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre Responsible Organization: Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre
Location: https://github.com/APNIC-net/rdap-rmp-demo/tree/partial- Location: https://github.com/APNIC-net/rdap-rmp-demo/tree/partial-
response response
Description: A proof-of-concept for RDAP mirroring. Description: A proof-of-concept for RDAP mirroring.
Level of Maturity: This is a proof-of-concept implementation. Level of Maturity: This is a proof-of-concept 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: Tom Harrison, tomh@apnic.net Contact Information: Tom Harrison, tomh@apnic.net
8. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
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: subsetting Extension identifier: subsetting
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
partial response provisioning. partial response provisioning.
9. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The search query typically requires more server resources (such as The search query typically requires more server resources (such as
memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to the memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to the
lookup query. This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion lookup query. This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion
and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. Partial response can and 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 support RDAP operators to implement Furthermore, partial response can support RDAP operators to implement
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 46
o some field sets could be available only to some users. o some field sets could be available only to some users.
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. realized.
Therefore, the new query parameter presented in this document Therefore, the new query parameter presented in this document
provides the RDAP operators with a way to implement a secure server provides the RDAP operators with a way to implement a secure server
without penalizing its efficiency. without penalizing its efficiency.
10. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Tom Harrison The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Tom Harrison,
and Karl Heinz Wolf for their contribution to this document. Karl Heinz Wolf and Jasdip Singh for their contribution to this
document.
11. References 10. References
11.1. Normative References 10.1. 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>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for [RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010, RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 48
[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>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References 10.2. 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/Catnap- 2017, <https://github.com/gregwhitaker/catnap/wiki/Catnap-
Query-Language-Reference>. 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>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 13, line 51
03: Added the "unicodeName" field in the id fieldSet when a returned 03: Added the "unicodeName" field in the id fieldSet when a returned
domain or nameserver is an IDN. Added RFC5890 to "Normative domain or nameserver is an IDN. Added RFC5890 to "Normative
References" section. References" section.
04: Recommended the RDAP providers to include a "self" link in any 04: Recommended the RDAP providers to include a "self" link in any
field set other than "full". Updated "Acknowledgements" section. field set other than "full". Updated "Acknowledgements" section.
05: Moved "Approaches to Partial Response Implementation" section to 05: Moved "Approaches to Partial Response Implementation" section to
the appendix. the appendix.
06: Clarified the use of self links in "Basic Field Sets" section. 06: Clarified the use of self links in "Basic Field Sets" section.
Added APNIC to the implementations of the "Implementation Status" Added APNIC to the implementations of the "Implementation Status"
section. section.
07: Changed "only a subset is returned" to "only a subset of fields
in each result object is returned" in the "Introduction" section.
Moved the "RDAP Conformance" section up in the document. Updated
the "Acknowledgements" section.
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
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 44 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/