--- 1/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-02.txt 2019-11-04 09:13:15.745086731 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-03.txt 2019-11-04 09:13:15.769087342 -0800 @@ -1,270 +1,229 @@ Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo Internet-Draft M. Martinelli Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it -Expires: April 10, 2020 October 8, 2019 +Expires: May 6, 2020 November 3, 2019 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities - draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-02 + draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-03 Abstract The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include query capabilities to find the list of domains related to a set of entities matching a given search pattern. Even if such capabilities, commonly referred as reverse search, respond to some needs not yet readily fulfilled by the current Whois protocol, they have raised concerns from two perspectives: server processing impact and data privacy. Anyway, the impact of the reverse queries on RDAP servers processing is the same as the standard searches and it can be reduced by implementing policies to deal with large result sets, while data - privacy risks can be prevented by RDAP access control - functionalities. This document describes RDAP query extensions that - allow clients to request a reverse search based on the domains- - entities relationship. + privacy risks can be prevented by RDAP access control functionality. + In the RDAP context, an entity can be associated to any defined + object class. Therefore, a reverse search can be applied to other + use cases than the classic domain-entity scenario. This document + describes an RDAP search query extension that allows clients to + request a reverse search based on the relationship between an object + and the associated entities. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on April 10, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1. JSON in URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction Reverse Whois is a service provided by many web applications that allow users to find domain names owned by an individual or a company starting from the owner's details, such as name and email. Even if it has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g. uncovering trademark infringements, detecting cybercrime cases), its availability as a standardized Whois capability has been objected for two main reasons, which now don't seem to conflict with an RDAP implementation. The first objection has been caused by the potential risks of privacy violation. However, TLDs community is considering a new generation - of Registration Directory Services ([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2]), which - provide access to sensitive data under some permissible purposes and - according to adequate policies to enforce the requestor - accreditation, authentication, authorization, and terms and - conditions of data use. It is well known that such security policies - are not implemented in Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP - ([RFC7481]). Therefore, RDAP permits a reverse search implementation - complying with privacy protection principles. + of Registration Directory Services + ([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2],[ICANN-RA]), which provide access to + sensitive data under some permissible purposes and according to + adequate policies to enforce the requestor accreditation, + authentication, authorization, and terms and conditions of data use. + It is well known that such security policies are not implemented in + Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP ([RFC7481]). Therefore, + RDAP permits a reverse search implementation complying with privacy + protection principles. Another objection to the implementation of a reverse search capability has been connected with its impact on server processing. Since RDAP supports search queries, the impact of both standard and reverse searches is equivalent and can be mitigated by servers adopting ad hoc strategies. Furthermore, the reverse search is almost always performed by specifying an entity role (e.g. registrant, technical contact) and this can contribute to restricting the result set. Reverse searches, such as finding the list of domain names associated - with contacts, nameservers or DNSSEC keys, may be useful to - registrars as well. Usually, registries adopt out-of-band mechanisms - to provide results to registrars asking for reverse searches on their - domains. Possible reasons for such requests are: + with contacts or nameservers may be useful to registrars as well. + Usually, registries adopt out-of-band solutions to provide results to + registrars asking for reverse searches on their domains. Possible + reasons for such requests are: o the loss of synchronization between the registrar database and the registry database; o the need for such data to perform massive EPP ([RFC5730]) updates (e.g. changing the contacts of a set of domains, etc.). Currently, RDAP does not provide any way for a client to search for the collection of domains associated with an entity ([RFC7482]). A query (lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar, administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation is not allowed. Only reverse searches to find the collection of domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested. - Since entities can be in relationship with all RDAP objects + Since an entity can be in relationship with any RDAP object ([RFC7483]), the availability of a reverse search can be common to - all RDAP query paths. + all resource type path segments defined for search. The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP - query capabilities to enable reverse search based on the domains- - entities relationship (the classic Reverse Whois scenario). The + query capabilities to enable the reverse search based on the + relationship between any object and the associated entities. The extension is implemented by adding new path segments (i.e. search paths) and using a RESTful web service ([REST]). The service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) ([RFC7230]) and the conventions described in RFC 7480 ([RFC7480]). 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification - The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined - in RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). The search paths are: - - Syntax: domains?entityHandle= - - Syntax: domains?entityFn= - - Syntax: domains?entityEmail= - - Syntax: domains?entityAddr= - - The reverse search pattern is a JSON ([RFC8259]) object including two - members: + The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of those defined in RFC + 7482 ([RFC7482]). A generic reverse search path is described by the + syntax: - "value" (REQUIRED): represents the search pattern to be applied to - the corresponding entity field and can be a JSON type primitive or - object; + {resource-type}/reverse/{role}?{property}= - "role" (OPTIONAL): is a string whose possible values are those - detailed in Section 10.2.4 of RFC 7483 ([RFC7483]). When it is - missing, the reverse search is performed without considering the - entity role. + The path segments are defined as in the following: - The search patterns corresponding to the "value" in the first two - cases (Figure 1) are the same as specified in paragraph Section 3.2.3 - of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). + o resource-type: it MUST be one of resource type path segments + defined in Section 3.2 of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]): "domains", + "nameservers" or "entities"; - domains?entityHandle={"value":"CID-40*","role":"registrant"} + o role: it MUST be one of the roles described in Section 10.2.4 of + RFC 7483 ([RFC7483]). For role independent reverse searches, the + value "entity" MUST be used; - domains?entityFn={"value":"Bobby*","role":"registrant"} + o property: it identifies the entity property to be used in matching + the search pattern. A pre-defined list of properties includes: + fn, handle, email, city, country, cc. The mapping between such + properties and the RDAP fields is shown in Table 1. Servers MAY + implement additional properties to those defined in this document. - Figure 1: Examples of RDAP queries to find all domains related to any - registrant whose handle matches "CID-40*" and whose formatted name - matches "Bobby*" + Partial string matching is allowed as defined in section 4.1 of RFC + 7482 ([RFC7482]). - The last two reverse searches are considered by gTLD stakeholders - very useful to improve RDS searchability ([ICANN-RDS1], [ICANN-RA]). + +-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+ + | Reverse search | RDAP property | RFC | RFC | RFC | + | property | | 7483 | 6350 | 8605 | + +-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+ + | handle | handle | 5.1. | | | + | fn | vcard fn | | 6.2.1 | | + | email | vcard email | | 6.4.2 | | + | city | locality in vcard | | 6.3.1 | | + | | adr | | | | + | country | country name in | | 6.3.1 | | + | | vcard adr | | | | + | cc | country code in | | | 3.1 | + | | vcard adr | | | | + +-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+ - Searches for domains by related entity email are specified using this - form: + Table 1: Mapping between the reverse search properties and the RDAP + fields - domains?entityEmail={"value":"XXXX","role":"ZZZZ"} - where XXXX is a search pattern representing an email address as - defined in RFC 5322 ([RFC5322]). + https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/technical?handle=CID-40* - Searches for domains by related entity postal address are specified - using this form: + https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?fn=Bobby* - domains?entityAddr={"value":YYYY,"role":"ZZZZ"} + https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?cc=US - where YYYY is a JSON object containing the information described in - Section 2.4 of RFC 5733 ([RFC5733]), respectively: "street", "city", - "sp", "pc" and "cc" (Figure 2). All the members of the postal - address object are OPTIONAL but at least one is REQUIRED. The - constraints on the members are implicitly joined by AND. + https://example.com/rdap/entites/reverse/registrar?handle=RegistrarX -domains?entityAddr={"value":{"cc":"CA","city":"Sydney"},"role":"registrant"} + Figure 1: Examples of reverse search queries - Figure 2: Example of an RDAP query to find all domains related to any - registrant whose postal address contains the country code equals to - "CA" and the city equals to "Sydney" + The "country" property can be used as an alternative to "cc" when + RDAP servers don't include the vCard "cc" parameter ([RFC8605]) in + their response. 3. Implementation Considerations The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible. - The search paths "handle" and "fn" are used as standard paths to - search for entities. With regards to the last two reverse searches, - both email and postal address information are usually required by the - registries but, while the former is usually mapped onto a DBMS - indexed field, the latter is mapped onto a combination of non-indexed - fields. As a consequence, while the former should not significantly - decrease the performance, the latter might have an impact on server - processing. Anyway, this impact is evaluated to be the same as other - query capabilities already presented in RDAP (e.g. wildcard prefixed - search pattern) so the risks to generate huge result sets are the - same as those related to other standard searches and can be mitigated - by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting the search - functionalities, limiting the rate of search requests according to - the user profile, truncating and paging the results, returning - partial responses). - -3.1. JSON in URLs - - Many web services, including RDAP, rely on the HTTP GET method to - take advantage of some of its features: - - o GET requests can be cached; - o GET requests remain in the browser history; - o GET requests can be bookmarked. - - Sometimes, it happens that such advantages should be combined with - the requirement to pass objects and arrays in the query string. JSON - is the best candidate as data interchange format, but it contains - some characters that are forbidden from appearing in a URL. Anyway, - escaping the invalid characters is not an issue because, on the - client side, modern browsers automatically encode URLs and, on the - server side, several URL encoding/decoding libraries for all web - development programming languages are available. The downside of URL - encoding is that it can make a pretty long URL, which, depending on - the initial length and the number of invalid characters, might exceed - the practical limit of web browsers (i.e. 2,000 characters). - - Other solutions to pass a JSON expression in a URL could be: - - o converting JSON to Base64 ([RFC4648]), but binary data are - unreadable; - - o using a JSON variation that complies with URL specifications and - maintains readability like Rison ([RISON]), URLON ([URLON]) or - JSURL ([JSURL]). - - The extensions proposed in this document rely on URL encoding because - it is widely supported and the risk to exceed the maximum URL length - is considered to be very unlikely in RDAP. + Both handle and fn are used as standard path segments to search for + entities ([RFC7482]). With regards to the other reverse search + properties, namely email, city and country code, the impact of their + usage on server processing is evaluated to be the same as other + existing query capabilities (e.g. wildcard prefixed search pattern) + so the risks to degrade the performance or to generate huge result + sets can be mitigated by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting + the search functionality, limiting the rate of search requests + according to the user profile, truncating and paging the results, + returning partial responses). 4. Implementation Status NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior to publication as an RFC. This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 ([RFC7942]). The description of implementations in this section is @@ -312,54 +270,54 @@ Another scenario consists of permitting reverse searches, which take into account only those entities that have previously given the explicit consent for publishing and processing their personal data. 6. Security Considerations Security services required to provide controlled access to the operations specified in this document are described in RFC 7481 ([RFC7481]). + The specification of the entity role within the reverse search path + allows the RDAP servers to implement different authorization policies + on a per-role basis. + 7. IANA Considerations This document has no actions for IANA. 8. Acknowledgements - The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Francisco - Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their contribution to - this document. + The authors would like to acknowledge Tom Harrison, Scott Hollenbeck, + Francisco Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their + contribution to this document. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004, . - [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, - . - [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, . - [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) - Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, - August 2009, . + [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, + . [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, . [RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015, . @@ -372,24 +330,29 @@ [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, . [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, . - [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data - Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, - DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, - . + [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, + . + + [RFC8605] Hollenbeck, S. and R. Carney, "vCard Format Extensions: + ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol + (RDAP)", RFC 8605, DOI 10.17487/RFC8605, May 2019, + . 9.2. Informative References [ICANN-RA] Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, "Registry Agreement", July 2017, . [ICANN-RDS1] @@ -400,49 +363,32 @@ . [ICANN-RDS2] Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, "Final Issue Report on a Next-Generation gTLD RDS to Replace WHOIS", October 2015, . - [JSURL] github.com, "JSURL", 2016, - . - [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures", 2000, . - [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data - Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006, - . - - [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, - . - - [RISON] github.com, "Rison - Compact Data in URIs", 2017, - . - - [URLON] github.com, "URL Object Notation", 2017, - . - Appendix A. Change Log 00: Initial working group version ported from draft-loffredo-regext- rdap-reverse-search-04 01: Updated "Privacy Considerations" section. 02: Revised the text. + 03: Refactored the query model. Authors' Addresses Mario Loffredo IIT-CNR/Registro.it Via Moruzzi,1 Pisa 56124 IT Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it