draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-14.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: January 30, 2021 July 29, 2020 Expires: March 17, 2021 September 13, 2020
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-13 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-14
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. Servers will only return capabilities to request partial responses. Servers will only return
full responses that include all of the information that a client is full responses that include all of the information that a client is
authorized to receive. A partial response capability that limits the authorized to receive. A partial response capability that limits the
amount of information returned, especially in the case of search amount of information returned, 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 30, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 17, 2021.
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 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
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. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.2. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Dealing with Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Dealing with Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Field Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Basic Field Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. APNIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. APNIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . 11 Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . 11
A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The use of partial responses in RESTful API [REST] design is very The use of partial responses 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 of the fields in in API responses with all data fields, only a subset of the fields in
each result object is returned. The benefit is obvious: fewer data each result object is returned. The benefit is obvious: less data
transferred over the network means less bandwidth usage, faster transferred over the network means less bandwidth usage, faster
server responses, less CPU time spent both on the server and the server responses, less CPU time spent both on the server and the
client, and less memory usage on the client. client, and less memory usage on the client.
Currently, RDAP does not provide a client with any way to request a Currently, RDAP does not provide a client with any way to request a
partial response. Servers can only provide the client with a full partial response. Servers can only provide the client with a full
response [RFC7483]. Servers cannot limit the amount of information response [RFC7483]. Servers cannot limit the amount of information
returned in a response based on a client's preferences, and this returned in a response based on a client's preferences, and this
creates inefficiencies. creates inefficiencies.
skipping to change at page 3, line 23 skipping to change at page 3, line 23
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. RDAP Path Segment Specification 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification
The path segment defined in this section is an OPTIONAL extension of The path segment defined in this section is an OPTIONAL extension of
search path segments defined in [RFC7482]. This document defines an search path segments defined in [RFC7482]. This document defines an
RDAP query parameter, "fieldSet", whose value is a non-empty string RDAP query parameter, "fieldSet", whose value is a non-empty string
identifying a server-defined set of fields returned in place of the identifying a server-defined set of fields returned in place of the
full response (Figure 1). The field sets supported by a server are full response (Figure 1). The field sets supported by a server are
usually described in out-of-band documents (e.g. RDAP profile) usually described in out-of-band documents (e.g., RDAP profile)
together with other features. Moreover, this document defines in together with other features. Moreover, this document defines in
Section 2.1 an in-band mechanism by means of which servers can Section 2.1 an in-band mechanism by means of which servers can
provide clients with a basic information about the supported field provide clients with a basic information about the supported field
sets. sets.
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=afieldset https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=afieldset
Figure 1: Example of RDAP search query reporting the "fieldSet" Figure 1: Example of RDAP search query reporting the "fieldSet"
parameter parameter
skipping to change at page 4, line 8 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
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 required to have prior knowledge of the service the client is not required 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 allows the server to make URI changes as the API evolves without This allows the server to make URI changes as the API evolves without
breaking clients. Definitively, a REST service should be as self- breaking clients. Definitively, a REST service should be as self-
descriptive as possible. descriptive as possible.
Therefore, servers implementing the query parameter described in this Therefore, servers implementing the query parameter described in this
specification SHOULD provide additional information in their specification SHOULD provide additional information in their
responses about the available field sets. Such information is responses about the available field sets. Such information is
collected in a new data structure named "subsetting_metadata" collected in a new JSON data structure named "subsetting_metadata"
containing the following properties: containing the following properties:
o "currentFieldSet": "String" (REQUIRED) either the value of the o "currentFieldSet": "String" (REQUIRED) either the value of the
"fieldSet" parameter as specified in the query string, or the "fieldSet" parameter as specified in the query string, or the
field set applied by default; field set applied by default;
o "availableFieldSets": "AvailableFieldSet[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of o "availableFieldSets": "AvailableFieldSet[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of
objects, with each element describing an available field set. objects, with each element describing an available field set. The
Members are: AvailableFieldSet object includes the following members:
* "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. An RDAP server MUST define only one
default field set;
* "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
[RFC8288] containing the query string that applies the field [RFC8288] containing the query string that applies the field
set. set (see Section 2.1.2).
2.1.1. RDAP Conformance 2.1.1. RDAP Conformance
Servers returning the "subsetting_metadata" section in their Servers returning the "subsetting_metadata" section in their
responses MUST include "subsetting" in the rdapConformance array. responses MUST include "subsetting" in the rdapConformance array.
2.1.2. Representing Subsetting Links 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). The target URI in each link is the reference field sets (Figure 2). The target URI in each link is the reference
to an alternative to the current view of results identified by the to an alternative to the current view of results identified by the
context URI. context URI.
The "value", "rel" and "href" JSON values MUST be specified. All
other JSON values are OPTIONAL.
{ {
"rdapConformance": [ "rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0", "rdap_level_0",
"subsetting" "subsetting"
], ],
... ...
"subsetting_metadata": { "subsetting_metadata": {
"currentFieldSet": "afieldset", "currentFieldSet": "afieldset",
"availableFieldSets": [ "availableFieldSets": [
{ {
skipping to change at page 5, line 44 skipping to change at page 5, line 44
"domainSearchResults": [ "domainSearchResults": [
... ...
] ]
} }
Figure 2: Example of a "subsetting_metadata" instance Figure 2: Example of a "subsetting_metadata" instance
3. Dealing with Relationships 3. Dealing with Relationships
Representation of second level objects within a field set produces Representation of second level objects within a field set produces
additional considerations. Since the topmost objects could be additional considerations. Since the representation of the topmost
returned according to different field sets, the same field sets could returned objects will vary according to the field set in use, the
be applied to their related objects. As a consequence, the response response may contain no relationships (e.g., for an abbreviated field
could contain either no relationship or associated objects which are set) or may contain associated objects as in a normal RDAP query
in turn provided according to a field set. response. Each field set can indicate the format of the additional
objects to be returned, in the same manner that the format of the
topmost objects is controlled by the field set.
4. Basic Field Sets 4. Basic Field Sets
This section defines three basic field sets which servers MAY This section defines three basic field sets which servers MAY
implement to facilitate their interaction with clients: implement to facilitate their interaction with clients:
o "id": the server provides only the key field: "handle" for o "id": the server provides only the key field: "handle" for
entities, "ldhName" for domains and nameservers. If a returned entities, "ldhName" for domains and nameservers. If a returned
domain or nameserver is an Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) domain or nameserver is an Internationalized Domain Name (IDN)
[RFC5890], then the "unicodeName" field MUST be included in the [RFC5890], then the "unicodeName" field MUST additionally be
response. This field set could be used when the client wants to included in the response. This field set could be used when the
obtain a collection of object identifiers (Figure 3); client wants to obtain a collection of object identifiers
(Figure 3);
o "brief": the field set contains the fields that can be included in o "brief": the field set contains the fields that can be included in
a "short" response. This field set could be used when the client a "short" response. This field set could be used when the client
is asking for a subset of the full response which provides only is asking for a subset of the full response which provides only
basic knowledge of each object; basic knowledge of each object;
o "full": the field set contains all of the information the server o "full": the field set contains all of the information the server
can provide for a particular object. can provide for a particular object.
The "objectClassName" field is implicitly included in each of the The "objectClassName" field is implicitly included in each of the
above field sets. RDAP providers SHOULD include a "self" link in above field sets. RDAP providers SHOULD include a "links" field
each field set. RDAP providers MAY also add any property providing indicating the "self" link relationship. RDAP providers MAY also add
service information. any property providing service information.
Fields included in the "brief" and "full" field set responses MUST Fields included in the "brief" and "full" field set responses MUST
take into account the user's access and authorization levels. take into account the user's access and authorization levels.
{ {
"rdapConformance": [ "rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0", "rdap_level_0",
"subsetting" "subsetting"
], ],
... ...
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 46
... ...
] ]
} }
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 empty or unsupported "fieldSet" value MUST Each request including an empty or unsupported "fieldSet" value MUST
produce an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code. Optionally, the produce an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code. Optionally, the
response MAY include additional information regarding the negative response MAY include additional information regarding the supported
answer in the HTTP entity body. field sets in the HTTP entity body (Figure 4).
{
"errorCode": 400,
"title": "Field set 'unknownfieldset' is not valid",
"description": [
"Supported field sets are: 'afieldset', 'anotherfieldset'."
]
}
Figure 4: Example of RDAP error response due to an invalid field set
included in the request
6. IANA Considerations 6. 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: IETF <iesg@ietf.org> Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
skipping to change at page 9, line 21 skipping to change at page 9, line 33
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. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
A search query typically requires more server resources (such as A search query typically requires more server resources (such as
memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to a lookup memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to a 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. This risk can be subsequent denial of service. This risk can be mitigated by
mitigated by supporting the return of partial responses combined with supporting the return of partial responses combined with other
other strategies (e.g. restricting search functionality, limiting the strategies (e.g. restricting search functionality, limiting the rate
rate of search requests, and truncating and paging results). of search requests, and truncating and paging results).
Support for partial responses gives RDAP operators the ability to Support for partial responses gives RDAP operators the ability to
implement data access control policies based on the HTTP implement data access control policies based on the HTTP
authentication mechanisms described in [RFC7481]. RDAP operators can authentication mechanisms described in [RFC7481]. RDAP operators can
vary the information returned in RDAP responses based on a client's vary the information returned in RDAP responses based on a client's
access and authorization levels. For example: access and authorization levels. For example:
o the list of fields for each set can differ based on the client's o the list of fields for each set can differ based on the client's
access and authorization levels; access and authorization levels;
skipping to change at page 11, line 11 skipping to change at page 11, line 25
[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>.
[HATEOAS] Jedrzejewski, B., "HATEOAS - a simple explanation", 2018, [HATEOAS] Jedrzejewski, B., "HATEOAS - a simple explanation", 2018,
<https://www.e4developer.com/2018/02/16/hateoas-simple- <https://www.e4developer.com/2018/02/16/hateoas-simple-
explanation/>. explanation/>.
[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.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
RESTful_Best_Practices-v1_1.pdf>. fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation
Looking at the implementation experiences of partial response, two Looking at the implementation experiences of partial response offered
approaches are observed: by data providers on the web, two approaches are observed:
o The client explicitly describes the data fields to be returned; o The client explicitly describes the data fields to be returned;
o The client describes a name identifying a server-defined set of o The client describes a name identifying a server-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. However, it has some specify all the data fields they need. However, it has some
drawbacks: drawbacks:
skipping to change at page 11, line 40 skipping to change at page 12, line 7
is much more difficult when the object has a tree structure like is much more difficult when the object has a tree structure like
that of a JSON object. The presence of arrays and deep nested that of a JSON object. The presence of arrays and deep nested
objects complicate both the syntax definition of the query and, objects complicate both the syntax definition of the query and,
consequently, the processing required on the server side; consequently, the processing required on the server side;
o Clients need to recognize the returned data structure to avoid o Clients need to recognize the returned data structure to avoid
cases when the requested fields are invalid; cases when the requested fields are invalid;
o The request of some fields might not match the client's access and o The request of some fields might not match the client's access and
authorization levels. Clients might request unauthorized fields authorization levels. Clients might request unauthorized fields
and servers should define a strategy for responding, such as and servers have to define a strategy for responding, such as
always returning an error response or returning a response that always returning an error response or returning a response that
ignores the unauthorized fields. ignores the unauthorized fields.
A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP
In addition to those listed above, RDAP responses raise some specific In addition to those listed above, RDAP responses raise some specific
issues: issues:
o Relevant entity object information is included in a jCard, but o Relevant entity object information is included in a jCard, but
such information cannot be easily selected because it is split such information cannot be easily selected because it is split
skipping to change at page 12, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 33
They could be returned anyway but, in this case, the server would They could be returned anyway but, in this case, the server would
provide unrequested data. provide unrequested data.
It is possible to address these issues. For example, the Catnap It is possible to address these issues. For example, the Catnap
Query Language [CQL] is a comprehensive expression language that can Query Language [CQL] is a comprehensive expression language that can
be used to customize the JSON response of a RESTful web service. be used to customize the JSON response of a RESTful web service.
Application of CQL to RDAP responses would explicitly identify the Application of CQL to RDAP responses would explicitly identify the
output fields that would be acceptable when a few fields are output fields that would be acceptable when a few fields are
requested but it would become very complicated when processing a requested but it would become very complicated when processing a
larger number of fields. In the following, two CQL expressions for a larger number of fields. In the following, two CQL expressions for a
domain search query are shown (Figure 4). In the first, only domain search query are shown (Figure 5). In the first, only
objectClassName and ldhName are requested. In the second, the fields objectClassName and ldhName are requested. In the second, the fields
of a possible WHOIS-like response are listed. of a possible WHOIS-like response are listed.
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com
&fields=domainSearchResults(objectClassName,ldhName) &fields=domainSearchResults(objectClassName,ldhName)
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com
&fields=domainSearchResults(objectClassName,ldhName, &fields=domainSearchResults(objectClassName,ldhName,
unicodeName, unicodeName,
status, status,
events(eventAction,eventDate), events(eventAction,eventDate),
entities(objectClassName,handle,roles), entities(objectClassName,handle,roles),
nameservers(objectClassName,ldhName)) nameservers(objectClassName,ldhName))
Figure 4: Examples of CQL expressions for a domain search query Figure 5: Examples of CQL expressions for a domain search query
The latter approach seems to facilitate RDAP interoperability. The latter approach seems to facilitate RDAP interoperability.
Servers can define basic field sets which, if known to clients, can Servers can define basic field sets which, if known to clients, can
increase the probability of obtaining a valid response. The usage of increase the probability of obtaining a valid response. The usage of
field sets makes the query string be less complex. Moreover, the field sets makes the query string be less complex. Moreover, the
definition of pre-defined sets of fields makes it easier to establish definition of pre-defined sets of fields makes it easier to establish
result limits. result limits.
Finally, considering that there is no real need for RDAP users to Finally, considering that there is no 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 (e.g. users interested in domains usually logically connected fields (e.g. users interested in domains usually
need to know the status, the creation date, and the expiry date of need to know the status, the creation date, and the expiry date of
each domain), the latter approach is preferred. each domain), the latter approach is preferred.
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Tom Harrison, The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Tom Harrison,
Karl Heinz Wolf, Jasdip Singh and Patrick Mevzek for their Karl Heinz Wolf, Jasdip Singh, Patrick Mevzek, Benjamin Kaduk, Roman
Danyliw, Murray Kucherawy, Erik Kline and Robert Wilton for their
contribution to this document. contribution to this document.
Change Log 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 01: Removed "FOR DISCUSSION" items. Changed the basic field sets
from REQUIRED to OPTIONAL. Removed the definition of fields from REQUIRED to OPTIONAL. Removed the definition of fields
included in "brief" field set. Provided a more detailed included in "brief" field set. Provided a more detailed
description of "subsetting_metadata" structure. Removed some description of "subsetting_metadata" structure. Removed some
skipping to change at page 13, line 39 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
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 07: Changed "only a subset is returned" to "only a subset of fields
in each result object is returned" in the "Introduction" section. in each result object is returned" in the "Introduction" section.
Moved the "RDAP Conformance" section up in the document. Updated Moved the "RDAP Conformance" section up in the document. Updated
the "Acknowledgements" section. the "Acknowledgements" section.
08: Changed the rdapConformance tag "subsetting_level_0" to 08: Changed the rdapConformance tag "subsetting_level_0" to
"subsetting". Moved [RFC7942] to the "Normative References". "subsetting". Moved [RFC7942] to the "Normative References".
09: Corrected the "rdapConformance" content in Figure 3. 09: Corrected the "rdapConformance" content in Figure 3.
10: Corrected the JSON content in Figure 2. Clarified the meaning 10: Corrected the JSON content in Figure 2. Clarified the meaning
of both context and target URIs in a result subset link defined in of both context and target URIs in a result subset link defined in
Section 2.1.2. Updated the "Acknowledgements" section. Section 2.1.2. Updated the "Acknowledgements" section.
11: Minor pre-AD review edits. 11: Minor pre-AD review edits.
12: Additional minor pre-AD review edits. 12: Additional minor pre-AD review edits.
13: Edits due to Gen-ART review: in the first paragraph of Section 2 13: Edits due to Gen-ART review: in the first paragraph of Section 2
clarified how field sets are defined by a server, in the first clarified how field sets are defined by a server, in the first
sentence of Section 5 replaced SHOULD with MUST. Other minor sentence of Section 5 replaced SHOULD with MUST. Other minor
edits due to AD review. edits due to AD review.
14: Edits due to IESG review:
* replaced "fewer data transferred" with "less data transferred"
in the "Introduction" section;
* in the "Subsetting Metadata" section;:
+ replaced the phrase "collected in a new data structure" with
the phrase "collected in a new JSON data structure";
+ replaced "Members are:" with "The AvailableFieldSet object
includes the following members:";
+ clarified that an RDAP server MUST define only one default
field set;
* clarified the required members of a Link object in the
"Subsetting Links" section;
* rewritten the "Dealing with Relationships" section;
* in the "Basic Field Sets" section:
+ replaced the phrase "include a 'self' link in each field
set" with the phrase "include a 'links' field indicating the
'self' link relationship";
+ replaced the phrase "'unicodeName' field MUST be included"
with the phrase "'unicodeName' field MUST additionally be
included";
* in the "Negative Answers" section:
+ replaced the phrase "the response MAY include additional
information regarding the negative answer" with the phrase
"the response MAY include additional information regarding
the supported field sets";
+ added a new example;
* replaced the phrase "and subsequent denial of service due to
abuse" with the phrase "and subsequent denial of service" in
"Security Considerations" section;
* corrected the [REST] reference in the "Informative References"
section;
* in "Appendix A":;
+ added the phrase " offered by data providers on the web"
after the phrase "Looking at the implementation experiences
of partial response";
+ replaced the phrase "servers should define a strategy" with
the phrase "servers have to define a strategy";
+ replaced the term "latter approach" with the term "field set
approach" in the "Appendix A.1" section;
* 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. 27 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 106 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/