draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-16.txt   rfc8982.txt 
Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft M. Martinelli Request for Comments: 8982 M. Martinelli
Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it Category: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Expires: March 27, 2021 September 23, 2020 ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2021
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-16
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
specify their preference for obtaining a partial response. specify their preference for obtaining a partial response.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2021. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8982.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification
2.1. Subsetting Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Subsetting Metadata
2.1.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.1. RDAP Conformance
2.1.2. Representing Subsetting Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.2. Representing Subsetting Links
3. Dealing with Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Dealing with Relationships
4. Basic Field Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Basic Field Sets
5. Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Negative Answers
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations
7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. References
7.2. APNIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Normative References
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. Informative References
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acknowledgements
Appendix A. Approaches to Partial Response Implementation . . . 11 Authors' Addresses
A.1. Specific Issues Raised by RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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: less 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.
The protocol described in this specification extends RDAP search The protocol described in this specification extends RDAP search
capabilities to enable partial responses through the provisioning of capabilities to enable partial responses through the provisioning of
pre-defined sets of fields that clients can submit to an RDAP service predefined sets of fields that clients can submit to an RDAP service
by adding a new query parameter. The service is implemented using by adding a new query parameter. The service is implemented using
the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] and the conventions the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] and the conventions
described in [RFC7480]. described in [RFC7480].
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 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. The field sets supported by a server are usually full response. The field sets supported by a server are usually
described in out-of-band documents (e.g., RDAP profile) together with described in out-of-band documents (e.g., RDAP profile) together with
other features. Moreover, this document defines in Section 2.1 an other features. Moreover, this document defines in Section 2.1 an
in-band mechanism by means of which servers can provide clients with in-band mechanism by means of which servers can provide clients with
a basic information about the supported field sets. basic information about the supported field sets.
The following is an example of an RDAP query including the "fieldSet" The following is an example of an RDAP query including the "fieldSet"
parameter: parameter:
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=afieldset https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com&fieldSet=afieldset
This solution can be implemented by RDAP providers with less effort This solution can be implemented by RDAP providers with less effort
than field selection and is easily requested by clients. The than field selection and is easily requested by clients. The
considerations that have led to this solution are described in more considerations that have led to this solution are described in more
detail in Appendix A. detail in Appendix A.
2.1. Subsetting Metadata 2.1. 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 "Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State" (HATEOAS)
[HATEOAS], a client entering a REST application through an initial [HATEOAS], a client entering a REST application through an initial
URI should use server-provided links to dynamically discover URI should use 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 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. nor, 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 JSON 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 "currentFieldSet": "String" (REQUIRED)
"fieldSet" parameter as specified in the query string, or the either the value of the "fieldSet" parameter as specified in the
field set applied by default; query string, or the field set applied by default.
o "availableFieldSets": "AvailableFieldSet[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of "availableFieldSets": "AvailableFieldSet[]" (OPTIONAL)
objects, with each element describing an available field set. The an array of objects, with each element describing an available
AvailableFieldSet object includes the following members: field set. The AvailableFieldSet object includes the following
members:
* "name": "String" (REQUIRED) the field set name; "name": "String" (REQUIRED)
* "default": "Boolean" (REQUIRED) whether the field set is the field set name.
applied by default. An RDAP server MUST define only one
default field set; "default": "Boolean" (REQUIRED)
* "description": "String" (OPTIONAL) a human-readable description indicator of whether the field set is applied by default. An
of the field set; RDAP server MUST define only one default field set.
* "links": "Link[]" (OPTIONAL) an array of links as described in
[RFC8288] containing the query string that applies the field "description": "String" (OPTIONAL)
set (see Section 2.1.2). a human-readable description of the field set.
"links": "Link[]" (OPTIONAL)
an array of links as described in [RFC8288] containing the
query string that applies the field 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 1). The target URI in each link is the reference field sets (Figure 1). 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 The "value", "rel", and "href" JSON values MUST be specified. All
other JSON values are OPTIONAL. other JSON values are OPTIONAL.
{ {
"rdapConformance": [ "rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0", "rdap_level_0",
"subsetting" "subsetting"
], ],
... ...
"subsetting_metadata": { "subsetting_metadata": {
"currentFieldSet": "afieldset", "currentFieldSet": "afieldset",
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at line 215
}, },
... ...
] ]
}, },
... ...
"domainSearchResults": [ "domainSearchResults": [
... ...
] ]
} }
Figure 1: Example of a "subsetting_metadata" instance Figure 1: 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 representation of the topmost additional considerations. Since the representation of the topmost
returned objects will vary according to the field set in use, the returned objects will vary according to the field set in use, the
response may contain no relationships (e.g., for an abbreviated field response may contain no relationships (e.g., for an abbreviated field
set) or may contain associated objects as in a normal RDAP query set) or may contain associated objects as in a normal RDAP query
response. Each field set can indicate the format of the additional response. Each field set can indicate the format of the additional
objects to be returned, in the same manner that the format of the objects to be returned, in the same manner that the format of the
topmost objects is controlled by the field set. 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 that 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 "id": The server provides only the key field; "handle" for entities,
entities, "ldhName" for domains and nameservers. If a returned and "ldhName" for domains and nameservers. If a returned domain
domain or nameserver is an Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) or nameserver is an Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) [RFC5890],
[RFC5890], then the "unicodeName" field MUST additionally be then the "unicodeName" field MUST additionally be included in the
included in the response. This field set could be used when the response. This field set could be used when the client wants to
client wants to obtain a collection of object identifiers obtain a collection of object identifiers (Figure 2).
(Figure 2);
o "brief": the field set contains the fields that can be included in "brief": The field set contains the fields that can be included in a
a "short" response. This field set could be used when the client "short" response. This field set could be used when the client is
is asking for a subset of the full response which provides only asking for a subset of the full response that provides only basic
basic knowledge of each object; knowledge of each object.
o "full": the field set contains all of the information the server "full": The field set contains all of the information the server can
can provide for a particular object. 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 "links" field above field sets. RDAP providers SHOULD include a "links" field
indicating the "self" link relationship. RDAP providers MAY also add indicating the "self" link relationship. RDAP providers MAY also add
any property providing 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.
{ {
skipping to change at page 7, line 40 skipping to change at line 291
"rel": "self", "rel": "self",
"href": "https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com", "href": "https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"type": "application/rdap+json" "type": "application/rdap+json"
} }
] ]
}, },
... ...
] ]
} }
Figure 2: Example of RDAP response according to the "id" field set Figure 2: 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 supported response MAY include additional information regarding the supported
field sets in the HTTP entity body (Figure 3). field sets in the HTTP entity body (Figure 3).
{ {
"errorCode": 400, "errorCode": 400,
"title": "Field set 'unknownfieldset' is not valid", "title": "Field set 'unknownfieldset' is not valid",
"description": [ "description": [
"Supported field sets are: 'afieldset', 'anotherfieldset'." "Supported field sets are: 'afieldset', 'anotherfieldset'."
] ]
} }
Figure 3: Example of RDAP error response due to an invalid field set Figure 3: Example of RDAP Error Response Due to an Invalid Field
included in the request Set Included in the Request
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP IANA has registered the following value in the "RDAP Extensions"
Extensions Registry: registry:
Extension identifier: subsetting Extension identifier: subsetting
Registry operator: Any Registry operator: Any
Published specification: This document. Published specification: RFC 8982
Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org> Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: This extension describes best practice for partial Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for partial
response provisioning. response provisioning.
7. Implementation Status 7. Security Considerations
NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
to publication as an RFC.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics
of the National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it
Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/
Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries
using data from .it public test environment.
Level of Maturity: This is an "alpha" test implementation.
Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
7.2. APNIC
Responsible Organization: Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre
Location: https://github.com/APNIC-net/rdap-rmp-demo/tree/partial-
response
Description: A proof-of-concept for RDAP mirroring.
Level of Maturity: This is a proof-of-concept implementation.
Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
Contact Information: Tom Harrison, tomh@apnic.net
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. This risk can be mitigated by subsequent denial of service. This risk can be mitigated by
supporting the return of partial responses combined with other supporting the return of partial responses combined with other
strategies (e.g. restricting search functionality, limiting the rate strategies (e.g., restricting search functionality, limiting the 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 * the list of fields for each set can differ based on the client's
access and authorization levels; access and authorization levels;
o the set of available field sets could be restricted based on the * the set of available field sets could be restricted based on the
client's access and authorization levels. client's access and authorization levels.
Servers can also define different result limits according to the Servers can also define different result 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
implemented. The new query parameter presented in this document implemented. The new query parameter presented in this document
provides RDAP operators with a way to implement a server that reduces provides RDAP operators with a way to implement a server that reduces
inefficiency risks. inefficiency risks.
9. References 8. References
9.1. Normative References 8.1. 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 10, line 46 skipping to change at line 391
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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 8.2. Informative References
[CQL] Whitaker, G., "Catnap Query Language Reference", September [CQL] Whitaker, G., "Catnap Query Language Reference", commit
2017, <https://github.com/gregwhitaker/catnap/wiki/Catnap- d4f402c, September 2017,
Query-Language-Reference>. <https://github.com/gregwhitaker/catnap/wiki/Catnap-Query-
Language-Reference>.
[HATEOAS] Jedrzejewski, B., "HATEOAS - a simple explanation", 2018, [HATEOAS] Jedrzejewski, B., "HATEOAS - a simple explanation",
<https://www.e4developer.com/2018/02/16/hateoas-simple- February 2018, <https://www.e4developer.com/2018/02/16/
explanation/>. hateoas-simple-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", Ph.D. Dissertation,
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/ University of California, Irvine, 2000,
<https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.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 offered Looking at the implementation experiences of partial responses
by data providers on the web, two approaches are observed: offered by data providers on the web, two approaches are observed:
o the client explicitly describes the data fields to be returned; * the client explicitly describes the data fields to be returned;
o the client describes a name identifying a server-defined set of * 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:
o fields have to be declared according to a given syntax. This is a * 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
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 * 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 * 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 have to 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 * 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
into the items of a jagged array; into the items of a jagged array.
o RDAP responses contain some properties providing service * RDAP responses contain some properties providing service
information (e.g. rdapConformance, links, notices, remarks, etc.) information (e.g., rdapConformance, links, notices, remarks,
which are not normally selected but they are just as important. etc.), which are not normally selected but are just as important.
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
skipping to change at page 12, line 48 skipping to change at line 483
&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 4: Examples of CQL Expressions for a Domain Search Query
The field set approach seems to facilitate RDAP interoperability. The field set approach seems to facilitate RDAP interoperability.
Servers can define basic field sets which, if known to clients, can Servers can define basic field sets that, 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 less complex. Moreover, the
definition of pre-defined sets of fields makes it easier to establish definition of predefined 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 field set approach is preferred. each domain), the field set 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, Patrick Mevzek, Benjamin Kaduk, Roman Karl Heinz Wolf, Jasdip Singh, Patrick Mevzek, Benjamin Kaduk, Roman
Danyliw, Murray Kucherawy, Erik Kline and Robert Wilton for their Danyliw, Murray Kucherawy, Erik Kline, and Robert Wilton for their
contribution to this document. contribution to this document.
Change Log
00: Initial working group version ported from draft-loffredo-regext-
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.
02: Added the "Negative Answers" section. Changed "IANA
Considerations" section.
03: Added the "unicodeName" field in the id fieldSet when a returned
domain or nameserver is an IDN. Added RFC5890 to "Normative
References" section.
04: Recommended the RDAP providers to include a "self" link in any
field set other than "full". Updated "Acknowledgements" section.
05: Moved "Approaches to Partial Response Implementation" section to
the appendix.
06: Clarified the use of self links in "Basic Field Sets" section.
Added APNIC to the implementations of the "Implementation Status"
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.
08: Changed the rdapConformance tag "subsetting_level_0" to
"subsetting". Moved [RFC7942] to the "Normative References".
09: Corrected the "rdapConformance" content in Figure 2.
10: Corrected the JSON content in Figure 1. Clarified the meaning
of both context and target URIs in a result subset link defined in
Section 2.1.2. Updated the "Acknowledgements" section.
11: 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
clarified how field sets are defined by a server, in the first
sentence of Section 5 replaced SHOULD with MUST. Other minor
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
"Representing 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.
15: Minor edit in the "Appendix A.1" section;
16: Changed a figure containing only an RDAP query into text. Made
the RDAP queries uniform. Other minor edits.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mario Loffredo Mario Loffredo
IIT-CNR/Registro.it IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Via Moruzzi,1 Via Moruzzi,1
Pisa 56124 56124 Pisa
IT Italy
Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it URI: https://www.iit.cnr.it
Maurizio Martinelli Maurizio Martinelli
IIT-CNR/Registro.it IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Via Moruzzi,1 Via Moruzzi,1
Pisa 56124 56124 Pisa
IT Italy
Email: maurizio.martinelli@iit.cnr.it Email: maurizio.martinelli@iit.cnr.it
URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it URI: https://www.iit.cnr.it
 End of changes. 57 change blocks. 
270 lines changed or deleted 128 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/