draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02.txt   rfc9082.txt 
REGEXT Working Group S. Hollenbeck Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft Verisign Labs Request for Comments: 9082 Verisign Labs
Intended status: Standards Track A. Newton STD: 95 A. Newton
Expires: March 12, 2021 AWS Obsoletes: 7482 AWS
September 8, 2020 Category: Standards Track June 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02
Abstract Abstract
This document describes uniform patterns to construct HTTP URLs that This document describes uniform patterns to construct HTTP URLs that
may be used to retrieve registration information from registries may be used to retrieve registration information from registries
(including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name (including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name
Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns. These Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns. These
uniform patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data uniform patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP). Access Protocol (RDAP). This document obsoletes RFC 7482.
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 12, 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/rfc9082.
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
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Path Segment Specification
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification
3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 7 3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification
3.1.4. Nameserver Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.4. Nameserver Path Segment Specification
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification
3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1. Domain Search
3.2.2. Nameserver Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.2. Nameserver Search
3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.3. Entity Search
4. Query Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Query Processing
4.1. Partial String Searching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Partial String Searching
4.2. Associated Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. Associated Records
5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Extensibility
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Internationalization Considerations
6.1. Character Encoding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1. Character Encoding Considerations
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Viagenie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Security Considerations
7.2. ARIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. References
7.3. NicInfo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References
7.4. LACNIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Informative References
7.5. ICANN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 7482
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Acknowledgments
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Changes from RFC 7482 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes a specification for querying registration This document describes a specification for querying registration
data using a RESTful web service and uniform query patterns. The data using a RESTful web service and uniform query patterns. The
service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
[RFC7230] and the conventions described in [RFC7480]. These uniform [RFC7230] and the conventions described in [RFC7480]. These uniform
patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data Access patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP). Protocol (RDAP). This document obsoletes RFC 7482.
The protocol described in this specification is intended to address The protocol described in this specification is intended to address
deficiencies with the WHOIS protocol [RFC3912] that have been deficiencies with the WHOIS protocol [RFC3912] that have been
identified over time, including: identified over time, including:
o lack of standardized command structures; * lack of standardized command structures;
o lack of standardized output and error structures; * lack of standardized output and error structures;
o lack of support for internationalization and localization; and * lack of support for internationalization and localization; and
o lack of support for user identification, authentication, and * lack of support for user identification, authentication, and
access control. access control.
The patterns described in this document purposefully do not encompass The patterns described in this document purposefully do not encompass
all of the methods employed in the WHOIS and other RESTful web all of the methods employed in the WHOIS and other RESTful web
services used by the RIRs and DNRs. The intent of the patterns services used by the RIRs and DNRs. The intent of the patterns
described here is to enable queries of: described here is to enable queries of:
o networks by IP address; * networks by IP address;
o Autonomous System (AS) numbers by number; * Autonomous System (AS) numbers by number;
o reverse DNS metadata by domain; * reverse DNS metadata by domain;
o nameservers by name; and * nameservers by name; and
o entities (such as registrars and contacts) by identifier. * entities (such as registrars and contacts) by identifier.
Server implementations are free to support only a subset of these Server implementations are free to support only a subset of these
features depending on local requirements. Servers MUST return an features depending on local requirements. Servers MUST return an
HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC7231] response to inform clients of HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC7231] response to inform clients of
unsupported query types. It is also envisioned that each registry unsupported query types. It is also envisioned that each registry
will continue to maintain WHOIS and/or other RESTful web services will continue to maintain WHOIS and/or other RESTful web services
specific to their needs and those of their constituencies, and the specific to their needs and those of their constituencies, and the
information retrieved through the patterns described here may information retrieved through the patterns described here may
reference such services. reference such services.
Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for Likewise, future IETF specifications may add additional patterns for
additional query types. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is additional query types. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is
described in Section 5 to accommodate custom extensions that will not described in Section 5 to accommodate custom extensions that will not
interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns
defined in future IETF standards. defined in future IETF specifications.
WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore, URL WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Accordingly, URL
[RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to [RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to
the HTTP [RFC7231] GET and HEAD methods. the HTTP [RFC7231] GET and HEAD methods.
This document does not describe the results or entities returned from This document does not describe the results or entities returned from
issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET. The specification of issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET. The specification of
these entities is described in [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis]. these entities is described in [RFC9083].
Additionally, resource management, provisioning, and update functions Additionally, resource management, provisioning, and update functions
are out of scope for this document. Registries have various and are out of scope for this document. Registries have various and
divergent methods covering these functions, and it is unlikely a divergent methods covering these functions, and it is unlikely a
uniform approach is needed for interoperability. uniform approach is needed for interoperability.
HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients and for HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients and for
clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization schemes may clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization schemes may
be built), so such mechanisms are not described in this document. be built), so such mechanisms are not described in this document.
Policy, provisioning, and processing of authentication and Policy, provisioning, and processing of authentication and
authorization are out of scope for this document as deployments will authorization are out of scope for this document as deployments will
have to make choices based on local criteria. Supported have to make choices based on local criteria. Supported
authentication mechanisms are described in [RFC7481]. authentication mechanisms are described in [RFC7481].
2. Conventions Used in This Document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations 2.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
IDN: Internationalized Domain Name, a fully-qualified domain name IDN: Internationalized Domain Name, a fully-qualified domain name
containing one or more labels that are intended to include one or containing one or more labels that are intended to include one or
more Unicode code points outside the ASCII range (cf. "domain more Unicode code points outside the ASCII range (cf. "domain
name", "fully-qualified domain name" and "internationalized domain name", "fully-qualified domain name", and "internationalized
name" in RFC 8499 [RFC8499]). domain name" in RFC 8499 [RFC8499]).
IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications, a protocol IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications, a protocol for
for the handling of IDNs. In this document, "IDNA" refers the handling of IDNs. In this document, "IDNA" refers
specifically to the version of those specifications known as specifically to the version of those specifications known as
"IDNA2008" [RFC5890]. "IDNA2008" [RFC5890].
DNR: Domain Name Registry or Domain Name Registrar DNR: Domain Name Registry or Domain Name Registrar
NFC: Unicode Normalization Form C [Unicode-UAX15] NFC: Unicode Normalization Form C [Unicode-UAX15]
NFKC: Unicode Normalization Form KC [Unicode-UAX15] NFKC: Unicode Normalization Form KC [Unicode-UAX15]
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
REST: Representational State Transfer. The term was first
described in a doctoral dissertation [REST].
RESTful: An adjective that describes a service using HTTP and the REST: Representational State Transfer. The term was first described
in a doctoral dissertation [REST].
RESTful: An adjective that describes a service using HTTP and the
principles of REST. principles of REST.
RIR: Regional Internet Registry RIR: Regional Internet Registry
3. Path Segment Specification 3. Path Segment Specification
The base URLs used to construct RDAP queries are maintained in an The base URLs used to construct RDAP queries are maintained in an
IANA registry described in [RFC7484]. Queries are formed by IANA registry (the "bootstrap registry") described in [RFC7484].
retrieving an appropriate base URL from the registry and appending a Queries are formed by retrieving an appropriate base URL from the
path segment specified in either Sections 3.1 or 3.2. Generally, a registry and appending a path segment specified in either Sections
registry or other service provider will provide a base URL that 3.1 or 3.2. Generally, a registry or other service provider will
identifies the protocol, host, and port, and this will be used as a provide a base URL that identifies the protocol, host, and port, and
base URL that the complete URL is resolved against, as per Section 5 this will be used as a base URL that the complete URL is resolved
of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. For example, if the base URL is against, as per Section 5 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. For example, if the
"https://example.com/rdap/", all RDAP query URLs will begin with base URL is "https://example.com/rdap/", all RDAP query URLs will
"https://example.com/rdap/". begin with "https://example.com/rdap/".
The bootstrap registry does not contain information for query objects The bootstrap registry does not contain information for query objects
that are not part of a global namespace, including entities and help. that are not part of a global namespace, including entities and help.
A base URL for an associated object is required to construct a A base URL for an associated object is required to construct a
complete query. This limitation can be overcome for entities by complete query. This limitation can be overcome for entities by
using the practice described in RFC 8521 [RFC8521]. using the practice described in RFC 8521 [RFC8521].
For entities, a base URL is retrieved for the service (domain, For entities, a base URL is retrieved for the service (domain,
address, etc.) associated with a given entity. The query URL is address, etc.) associated with a given entity. The query URL is
constructed by concatenating the base URL to the entity path segment constructed by concatenating the base URL with the entity path
specified in either Sections 3.1.5 or 3.2.3. segment specified in either Sections 3.1.5 or 3.2.3.
For help, a base URL is retrieved for any service (domain, address, For help, a base URL is retrieved for any service (domain, address,
etc.) for which additional information is required. The query URL is etc.) for which additional information is required. The query URL is
constructed by concatenating the base URL to the help path segment constructed by concatenating the base URL with the help path segment
specified in Section 3.1.6. specified in Section 3.1.6.
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification
A simple lookup to determine if an object exists (or not) without A simple lookup to determine if an object exists (or not) without
returning RDAP-encoded results can be performed using the HTTP HEAD returning RDAP-encoded results can be performed using the HTTP HEAD
method as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC7480]. method as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC7480].
The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are: The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are:
o 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced
using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address. using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.
o 'autnum': Used to identify Autonomous System number registrations 'autnum': Used to identify Autonomous System number registrations
and associated data referenced using an asplain Autonomous System and associated data referenced using an asplain Autonomous System
number. number.
o 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR) 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR)
information and associated data referenced using a fully qualified information and associated data referenced using a fully qualified
domain name. domain name.
o 'nameserver': Used to identify a nameserver information query 'nameserver': Used to identify a nameserver information query using
using a host name. a host name.
o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query using a 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query using a
string identifier. string identifier.
3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification 3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification
Syntax: ip/<IP address> or ip/<CIDR prefix>/<CIDR length> Syntax: ip/<IP address> or ip/<CIDR prefix>/<CIDR length>
Queries for information about IP networks are of the form /ip/XXX or Queries for information about IP networks are of the form /ip/XXX or
/ip/XXX/YY where the path segment following 'ip' is either an IPv4 /ip/XXX/YY where the path segment following 'ip' is either an IPv4
dotted decimal or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e., XXX) or an IPv4 or dotted decimal or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e., XXX) or an IPv4 or
IPv6 Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] notation address IPv6 Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] notation address
block (i.e., XXX/YY). Semantically, the simpler form using the block (i.e., XXX/YY). Semantically, the simpler form using the
address can be thought of as a CIDR block with a bitmask length of 32 address can be thought of as a CIDR block with a prefix length of 32
for IPv4 and a bitmask length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific for IPv4 and a prefix length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific
address or CIDR may fall within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy address or CIDR may fall within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy
of networks; therefore, this query targets the "most-specific" or of networks; therefore, this query targets the "most-specific" or
smallest IP network that completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of smallest IP network that completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of
IP networks. IP networks.
The IPv4 and IPv6 address formats supported in this query are The IPv4 and IPv6 address formats supported in this query are
described in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986] as IPv4address and described in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986] as IPv4address and
IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format
[RFC4291] can be used. This includes IPv6 addresses written using [RFC4291] can be used. This includes IPv6 addresses written using
with or without compressed zeros and IPv6 addresses containing with or without compressed zeros and IPv6 addresses containing
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at line 283
the most specific network containing 192.0.2.0: the most specific network containing 192.0.2.0:
https://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0 https://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0
The following URL would be used to find information for the most The following URL would be used to find information for the most
specific network containing 192.0.2.0/24: specific network containing 192.0.2.0/24:
https://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0/24 https://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0/24
The following URL would be used to find information for the most The following URL would be used to find information for the most
specific network containing 2001:db8::0: specific network containing 2001:db8::
https://example.com/rdap/ip/2001:db8::0 https://example.com/rdap/ip/2001:db8::
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification 3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification
Syntax: autnum/<autonomous system number> Syntax: autnum/<autonomous system number>
Queries for information regarding Autonomous System number Queries for information regarding Autonomous System number
registrations are of the form /autnum/XXX where XXX is an asplain registrations are of the form /autnum/XXX where XXX is an asplain
Autonomous System number [RFC5396]. In some registries, registration Autonomous System number [RFC5396]. In some registries, registration
of Autonomous System numbers is done on an individual number basis, of Autonomous System numbers is done on an individual number basis,
while other registries may register blocks of Autonomous System while other registries may register blocks of Autonomous System
numbers. The semantics of this query are such that if a number falls numbers. The semantics of this query are such that if a number falls
within a range of registered blocks, the target of the query is the within a range of registered blocks, the target of the query is the
block registration and that individual number registrations are block registration and that individual number registrations are
considered a block of numbers with a size of 1. considered a block of numbers with a size of 1.
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at line 314
https://example.com/rdap/autnum/12 https://example.com/rdap/autnum/12
The following URL would be used to find information describing 4-byte The following URL would be used to find information describing 4-byte
Autonomous System number 65538: Autonomous System number 65538:
https://example.com/rdap/autnum/65538 https://example.com/rdap/autnum/65538
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification
Syntax: domain/<domain name> Syntax: domain/<domain name>
Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX, where Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX, where
XXXX is a fully qualified (relative to the root) domain name (as XXXX is a fully qualified (relative to the root) domain name (as
specified in [RFC0952] and [RFC1123]) in either the in-addr.arpa or specified in [RFC0952] and [RFC1123]) in either the in-addr.arpa or
ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully qualified domain name in a zone ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully qualified domain name in a zone
administered by the server operator (for DNRs). Internationalized administered by the server operator (for DNRs). Internationalized
Domain Names (IDNs) represented in either A-label or U-label format Domain Names (IDNs) represented in either A-label or U-label format
[RFC5890] are also valid domain names. See Section 6.1 for [RFC5890] are also valid domain names. See Section 6.1 for
information on character encoding for the U-label format. information on character encoding for the U-label format.
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at line 356
The following URL would be used to find information describing the The following URL would be used to find information describing the
zone serving the network 2001:db8:1::/48: zone serving the network 2001:db8:1::/48:
https://example.com/rdap/domain/1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa https://example.com/rdap/domain/1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
The following URL would be used to find information for the The following URL would be used to find information for the
blah.example.com domain name: blah.example.com domain name:
https://example.com/rdap/domain/blah.example.com https://example.com/rdap/domain/blah.example.com
The following URL would be used to find information for the xn--fo- The following URL would be used to find information for the
5ja.example IDN: xn--fo-5ja.example IDN:
https://example.com/rdap/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example https://example.com/rdap/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example
3.1.4. Nameserver Path Segment Specification 3.1.4. Nameserver Path Segment Specification
Syntax: nameserver/<nameserver name> Syntax: nameserver/<nameserver name>
The <nameserver name> parameter represents a fully qualified host The <nameserver name> parameter represents a fully qualified host
name as specified in [RFC0952] and [RFC1123]. Internationalized name as specified in [RFC0952] and [RFC1123]. Internationalized
names represented in either A-label or U-label format [RFC5890] are names represented in either A-label or U-label format [RFC5890] are
also valid nameserver names. IDN processing for nameserver names also valid nameserver names. IDN processing for nameserver names
uses the domain name processing instructions specified in uses the domain name processing instructions specified in
Section 3.1.3. See Section 6.1 for information on character encoding Section 3.1.3. See Section 6.1 for information on character encoding
for the U-label format. for the U-label format.
The following URL would be used to find information for the The following URL would be used to find information for the
ns1.example.com nameserver: ns1.example.com nameserver:
https://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.example.com https://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.example.com
The following URL would be used to find information for the ns1.xn-- The following URL would be used to find information for the
fo-5ja.example nameserver: ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example nameserver:
https://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example https://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification 3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification
Syntax: entity/<handle> Syntax: entity/<handle>
The <handle> parameter represents an entity (such as a contact, The <handle> parameter represents an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the
registration provider. For example, for some DNRs, contact registration provider. For example, for some DNRs, contact
identifiers are specified in [RFC5730] and [RFC5733]. identifiers are specified in [RFC5730] and [RFC5733].
The following URL would be used to find information for the entity The following URL would be used to find information for the entity
associated with handle XXXX: associated with handle XXXX:
https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification 3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification
Syntax: help Syntax: help
The help path segment can be used to request helpful information The help path segment can be used to request helpful information
(command syntax, terms of service, privacy policy, rate-limiting (command syntax, terms of service, privacy policy, rate-limiting
policy, supported authentication methods, supported extensions, policy, supported authentication methods, supported extensions,
technical support contact, etc.) from an RDAP server. The response technical support contact, etc.) from an RDAP server. The response
to "help" should provide basic information that a client needs to to "help" should provide basic information that a client needs to
successfully use the service. The following URL would be used to successfully use the service. The following URL would be used to
return "help" information: return "help" information:
https://example.com/rdap/help https://example.com/rdap/help
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification
Pattern matching semantics are described in Section 4.1. The Pattern matching semantics are described in Section 4.1. The
resource type path segments for search are: resource type path segments for search are:
o 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using a
a pattern to match a fully qualified domain name. pattern to match a fully qualified domain name.
o 'nameservers': Used to identify a nameserver information search 'nameservers': Used to identify a nameserver information search
using a pattern to match a host name. using a pattern to match a host name.
o 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a
pattern to match a string identifier. pattern to match a string identifier.
RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the
plural form of the object being searched for and an HTTP query plural form of the object being searched for and an HTTP query
string. The HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the string. The HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the
question mark character ('?', US-ASCII value 0x003F), a noun question mark character ('?', US-ASCII value 0x003F), a noun
representing the JSON object property associated with the object representing the JSON object property associated with the object
being searched for, the equal sign character ('=', US-ASCII value being searched for, the equal sign character ('=', US-ASCII value
0x003D), and the search pattern. Search pattern query processing is 0x003D), and the search pattern (this is in contrast to the more
described more fully in Section 4. For the domain, nameserver, and generic HTTP query string that allows multiple simultaneous
entity objects described in this document, the plural object forms parameters). Search pattern query processing is described more fully
are "domains", "nameservers", and "entities". in Section 4. For the domain, nameserver, and entity objects
described in this document, the plural object forms are "domains",
"nameservers", and "entities".
Detailed results can be retrieved using the HTTP GET method and the Detailed results can be retrieved using the HTTP GET method and the
path segments specified here. path segments specified here.
3.2.1. Domain Search 3.2.1. Domain Search
Syntax: domains?name=<domain search pattern> Syntax: domains?name=<domain search pattern>
Syntax: domains?nsLdhName=<nameserver search pattern> Syntax: domains?nsLdhName=<nameserver search pattern>
Syntax: domains?nsIp=<nameserver IP address> Syntax: domains?nsIp=<nameserver IP address>
Searches for domain information by name are specified using this Searches for domain information by name are specified using this
form: form:
domains?name=XXXX domains?name=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing a domain name in "letters, XXXX is a search pattern representing a domain name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" (LDH) format [RFC5890]. The following URL would be digits, hyphen" (LDH) format [RFC5890]. The following URL would be
used to find DNR information for domain names matching the used to find DNR information for domain names matching the
"example*.com" pattern: "example*.com" pattern:
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 skipping to change at line 492
domains?nsIp=ZZZZ domains?nsIp=ZZZZ
ZZZZ is an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address. The following ZZZZ is an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address. The following
URL would be used to search for domains that have been delegated to URL would be used to search for domains that have been delegated to
nameservers that resolve to the "192.0.2.0" address: nameservers that resolve to the "192.0.2.0" address:
https://example.com/rdap/domains?nsIp=192.0.2.0 https://example.com/rdap/domains?nsIp=192.0.2.0
3.2.2. Nameserver Search 3.2.2. Nameserver Search
Syntax: nameservers?name=<nameserver search pattern> Syntax: nameservers?name=<nameserver search pattern>
Syntax: nameservers?ip=<nameserver IP address> Syntax: nameservers?ip=<nameserver IP address>
Searches for nameserver information by nameserver name are specified Searches for nameserver information by nameserver name are specified
using this form: using this form:
nameservers?name=XXXX nameservers?name=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing a host name in "letters, XXXX is a search pattern representing a host name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890]. The following URL would be used to digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890]. The following URL would be used to
find information for nameserver names matching the "ns1.example*.com" find information for nameserver names matching the "ns1.example*.com"
pattern: pattern:
skipping to change at page 12, line 4 skipping to change at line 519
also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these
names are of the form /nameservers?name=XXXX, where XXXX is a search names are of the form /nameservers?name=XXXX, where XXXX is a search
pattern representing a nameserver name in U-label format [RFC5890]. pattern representing a nameserver name in U-label format [RFC5890].
See Section 6.1 for information on character encoding for the U-label See Section 6.1 for information on character encoding for the U-label
format. format.
Searches for nameserver information by nameserver IP address are Searches for nameserver information by nameserver IP address are
specified using this form: specified using this form:
nameservers?ip=YYYY nameservers?ip=YYYY
YYYY is an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address. The following YYYY is an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address. The following
URL would be used to search for nameserver names that resolve to the URL would be used to search for nameserver names that resolve to the
"192.0.2.0" address: "192.0.2.0" address:
https://example.com/rdap/nameservers?ip=192.0.2.0 https://example.com/rdap/nameservers?ip=192.0.2.0
3.2.3. Entity Search 3.2.3. Entity Search
Syntax: entities?fn=<entity name search pattern> Syntax: entities?fn=<entity name search pattern>
Syntax: entities?handle=<entity handle search pattern> Syntax: entities?handle=<entity handle search pattern>
Searches for entity information by name are specified using this Searches for entity information by name are specified using this
form: form:
entities?fn=XXXX entities?fn=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing the "fn" property of an entity XXXX is a search pattern representing the "fn" property of an entity
(such as a contact, registrant, or registrar) name as described in (such as a contact, registrant, or registrar) name as described in
Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis]. The following URL would Section 5.1 of [RFC9083]. The following URL would be used to find
be used to find information for entity names matching the "Bobby information for entity names matching the "Bobby Joe*" pattern:
Joe*" pattern:
https://example.com/rdap/entities?fn=Bobby%20Joe* https://example.com/rdap/entities?fn=Bobby%20Joe*
Searches for entity information by handle are specified using this Searches for entity information by handle are specified using this
form: form:
entities?handle=XXXX entities?handle=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing an entity (such as a contact, XXXX is a search pattern representing an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at line 568
4. Query Processing 4. Query Processing
Servers indicate the success or failure of query processing by Servers indicate the success or failure of query processing by
returning an appropriate HTTP response code to the client. Response returning an appropriate HTTP response code to the client. Response
codes not specifically identified in this document are described in codes not specifically identified in this document are described in
[RFC7480]. [RFC7480].
4.1. Partial String Searching 4.1. Partial String Searching
Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', US-ASCII value Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', US-ASCII value 0x2A)
0x002A) character to match zero or more trailing characters. A character to match zero or more trailing characters. A character
character string representing a domain label suffix MAY be string representing a domain label suffix MAY be concatenated to the
concatenated to the end of the search pattern to limit the scope of end of the search pattern to limit the scope of the search. For
the search. For example, the search pattern "exam*" will match example, the search pattern "exam*" will match "example.com" and
"example.com" and "example.net". The search pattern "exam*.com" will "example.net". The search pattern "exam*.com" will match
match "example.com". If an asterisk appears in a search string, any "example.com". If an asterisk appears in a search string, any label
label that contains the non-asterisk characters in sequence plus zero that contains the non-asterisk characters in sequence plus zero or
or more characters in sequence in place of the asterisk would match. more characters in sequence in place of the asterisk would match. A
A partial string search MUST NOT include more than one asterisk. partial string search MUST NOT include more than one asterisk.
Additional pattern matching processing is beyond the scope of this Additional pattern matching processing is beyond the scope of this
specification. specification.
If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request
because it does not support a particular style of partial match because it does not support a particular style of partial match
searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 (Unprocessable Entity) searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 (Unprocessable Entity)
[RFC4918] response. When returning a 422 error, the server MAY also [RFC4918] response (unless another response code is more appropriate
return an error response body as specified in Section 6 of based on a server's policy settings) to note that search
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis] if the requested media type is one that functionality is supported, but this particular query cannot be
is specified in [RFC7480]. processed. When returning a 422 error, the server MAY also return an
error response body as specified in Section 6 of [RFC9083] if the
requested media type is one that is specified in [RFC7480].
Partial matching is not feasible across combinations of Unicode Partial matching is not feasible across combinations of Unicode
characters because Unicode characters can be combined with each characters because Unicode characters can be combined with each
other. Servers SHOULD NOT partially match combinations of Unicode other. Servers SHOULD NOT partially match combinations of Unicode
characters where a legal combination is possible. It should be characters where a legal combination is possible. It should be
noted, though, that it may not always be possible to detect cases noted, though, that it may not always be possible to detect cases
where a character could have been combined with another character, where a character could have been combined with another character,
but was not, because characters can be combined in many different but was not, because characters can be combined in many different
ways. ways.
skipping to change at page 15, line 21 skipping to change at line 674
more visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but more visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but
clients using programmatic interfaces might find it easier to submit clients using programmatic interfaces might find it easier to submit
and display A-labels if they are unable to input U-labels with their and display A-labels if they are unable to input U-labels with their
keyboard configuration. Both query forms are acceptable. keyboard configuration. Both query forms are acceptable.
Internationalized domain and nameserver names can contain character Internationalized domain and nameserver names can contain character
variants and variant labels as described in [RFC4290]. Clients that variants and variant labels as described in [RFC4290]. Clients that
support queries for internationalized domain and nameserver names support queries for internationalized domain and nameserver names
MUST accept service provider responses that describe variants as MUST accept service provider responses that describe variants as
specified in "JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access specified in "JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP)" [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis]. Protocol (RDAP)" [RFC9083].
6.1. Character Encoding Considerations 6.1. Character Encoding Considerations
Servers can expect to receive search patterns from clients that Servers can expect to receive search patterns from clients that
contain character strings encoded in different forms supported by contain character strings encoded in different forms supported by
HTTP. It is entirely possible to apply filters and normalization HTTP. It is entirely possible to apply filters and normalization
rules to search patterns prior to making character comparisons, but rules to search patterns prior to making character comparisons, but
this type of processing is more typically needed to determine the this type of processing is more typically needed to determine the
validity of registered strings than to match patterns. validity of registered strings than to match patterns.
skipping to change at page 16, line 18 skipping to change at line 720
For everything else, servers map fullwidth and halfwidth characters For everything else, servers map fullwidth and halfwidth characters
to their decomposition equivalents. Servers convert strings to the to their decomposition equivalents. Servers convert strings to the
same coded character set of the target data that is to be looked up same coded character set of the target data that is to be looked up
or searched, and each string is normalized using the same or searched, and each string is normalized using the same
normalization that was used on the target data. In general, storage normalization that was used on the target data. In general, storage
of strings as Unicode is RECOMMENDED. For the purposes of of strings as Unicode is RECOMMENDED. For the purposes of
comparison, Normalization Form KC (NFKC) [Unicode-UAX15] with case comparison, Normalization Form KC (NFKC) [Unicode-UAX15] with case
folding is used to maximize predictability and the number of matches. folding is used to maximize predictability and the number of matches.
Note the use of case-folded NFKC as opposed to NFC in this case. Note the use of case-folded NFKC as opposed to NFC in this case.
7. Implementation Status 7. IANA 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 RFC 7942
[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. Viagenie
Responsible Organization: Viagenie
Location: RDAPBrowser (iOS and Android): https://viagenie.ca/
rdapbrowser
Description: Mobile app (iOS and Android) implementing an RDAP
client for domains, IP addresses and AS numbers.
Level of Maturity: Production
Coverage: All except for nameserver, entity, help, and search path
segments.
Version Compatibility: RFC 7482
Licensing: Proprietary
Implementation Experience: Quite simple and easy to deploy.
Responses are much harder to parse because RDAP servers are not
compliant.
Contact Information: Marc Blanchet, rdapbrowser@viagenie.ca
Date Last Updated: September 27, 2019
7.2. ARIN
Responsible Organization: ARIN
Location: search.arin.net https://search.arin.net/rdap/
Description: search.arin.net is a public web page getting about 8k
queries per day.
Level of Maturity: Production.
Coverage: Search.arin.net supports lookup of entities by handle,
search of entities by name, lookup of domain names, lookup of ip
networks, lookup of autnums.
Version Compatibility: RFC 7482
Licensing: Search.arin.net is not publicly licensed.
Implementation Experience: The RDAP queries are straightforward
for the most part. The vast majority of logic goes into
displaying information.
Contact Information: info@arin.net
Date Last Updated: July 2019.
7.3. NicInfo
Responsible Organization: ARIN
Location: NicInfo https://github.com/arineng/nicinfo
Description: NicInfo is a command line client written in Ruby.
Level of Maturity: NicInfo started as a research project, but is
known to be used by some organizations in a production capacity.
Version Compatibility: RFC 7482
Licensing: NicInfo is published under the ISC license.
Implementation Experience: The RDAP queries are straightforward
for the most part. The vast majority of logic goes into
displaying information.
Contact Information: info@arin.net
Date Last Updated: NicInfo was last updated in Feb 2018.
7.4. LACNIC
Responsible Organization: LACNIC
Location: https://github.com/LACNIC/rdap-frontend-angular-dev
Description: The goal of this client is to have an RDAP client
that can be easily embedded in web pages. The original request
was for a web whois/rdap feature that was to replace a very, very
old web whois that just popen'd CLI WHOIS and just copied back the
output to html. We decided to implement something that could, in
the future, be embedded in any web page and is not tied to our
current web portal CMS. The client is implemented in Javascript
and AngularJS.
Level of Maturity: We consider the current version production
quality, it has been in use in our web portal for more than a year
now.
Coverage: The client implements /ip, /autnum, and /entity. The
client does not support searches. For these objects the
implementation follows the standard closely. There may be a few
gaps, but it's mostly aligned to the RFCs.
Version Compatibility: RFC 7482
Licensing: BSD-Style
Implementation Experience: Users of the traditional WHOIS service
are a bit confused at first when they realize that an RDAP query
does not necessarily return the same information and in some cases
they need to "navigate" the RDAP tree to get data that is normally
returned in a single WHOIS query. In our experience, this gap in
expectations has been one of the most significant hurdles in
adoption of RDAP. Our RDAP client makes this "navigation" easier
as it presents results in the form of a web page where the "next"
necessary RDAP query is a click on a link. On the plus side, the
protocol provides all the information needed to present this links
and clicks to the user. We have however introduced a few
extensions into our RDAP responses to get both services to parity
in the information presented in a single query.
Contact Information: Gerardo Rada (gerardo@lacnic.net), Carlos
Martinez (carlos@lacnic.net)
Date Last Updated: This application is currently in maintenance
mode. Also, we employ a rolling release update. Latest updates
are available in the git log of the repo.
7.5. ICANN
Responsible Organization: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN)
Location: Domain Name Registration Data Lookup:
https://lookup.icann.org/
Description: ICANN created the Domain Name Registration Data
Lookup web client as a free public service that gives users the
ability to look up and display publicly available registration
data related to a domain name using the top level domain's RDAP
service location listed in the IANA bootstrap service registry for
domain name space (RFC 7484), and the sponsoring Registrar's RDAP
server. This web client implementation also supports the
specifications defined in the "gTLD RDAP Profile" documents
(https://www.icann.org/gtld-rdap-profile).
Level of Maturity: Production.
Coverage: This web client implements RFC 7482 section 3.1.3
"Domain Path Segment Specification" to perform lookups exclusively
for the domain object class.
Version Compatibility: RFC 7482
Contact Information: globalSupport@icann.org
Date Last Updated: 07-Oct-2019
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no IANA actions.
9. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Security services for the operations specified in this document are Security services for the operations specified in this document are
described in "Security Services for the Registration Data Access described in "Security Services for the Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP)" [RFC7481]. Protocol (RDAP)" [RFC7481].
Search functionality typically requires more server resources (such Search functionality typically requires more server resources (such
as memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to basic as memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to basic
lookup functionality. This increases the risk of server resource lookup functionality. This increases the risk of server resource
exhaustion and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. This risk exhaustion and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. This risk
can be mitigated by developing and implementing controls to restrict can be mitigated by developing and implementing controls to restrict
skipping to change at page 20, line 45 skipping to change at line 757
information about registered domain names that might not be otherwise information about registered domain names that might not be otherwise
available. Implementers need to consider the policy and privacy available. Implementers need to consider the policy and privacy
implications of returning information that was not explicitly implications of returning information that was not explicitly
requested. requested.
Note that there might not be a single, static information return Note that there might not be a single, static information return
policy that applies to all clients equally. Client identity and policy that applies to all clients equally. Client identity and
associated authorizations can be a relevant factor in determining how associated authorizations can be a relevant factor in determining how
broad the response set will be for any particular query. broad the response set will be for any particular query.
10. References 9. References
10.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet [RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet
host table specification", RFC 952, DOI 10.17487/RFC0952, host table specification", RFC 952, DOI 10.17487/RFC0952,
October 1985, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc952>. October 1985, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc952>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
skipping to change at page 22, line 35 skipping to change at line 841
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the [RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015, RFC 7480, DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
[RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, RFC 7481, DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
[RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data [RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>. January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7483bis] [RFC9083] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the
Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf- RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021,
regext-rfc7483bis-01 (work in progress), June 2020. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>.
[Unicode-UAX15] [Unicode-UAX15]
The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15: The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2013, Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2013,
<https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>. <https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>.
10.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D. Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 2000, Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 2000,
<https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/ <https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.pdf>. fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.
skipping to change at page 23, line 47 skipping to change at line 904
[RFC6874] Carpenter, B., Cheshire, S., and R. Hinden, "Representing [RFC6874] Carpenter, B., Cheshire, S., and R. Hinden, "Representing
IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
Resource Identifiers", RFC 6874, DOI 10.17487/RFC6874, Resource Identifiers", RFC 6874, DOI 10.17487/RFC6874,
February 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6874>. February 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6874>.
[RFC6927] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Variants in Second-Level Names [RFC6927] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Variants in Second-Level Names
Registered in Top-Level Domains", RFC 6927, Registered in Top-Level Domains", RFC 6927,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6927, May 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6927, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6927>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6927>.
[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>.
[RFC8521] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access [RFC8521] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging", BCP 221, RFC 8521, Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging", BCP 221, RFC 8521,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8521, November 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8521, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8521>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8521>.
Acknowledgements Appendix A. Changes from RFC 7482
This document is derived from original work on RIR query formats
developed by Byron J. Ellacott of APNIC, Arturo L. Servin of
LACNIC, Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN.
Additionally, this document incorporates DNR query formats originally
described by Francisco Arias and Steve Sheng of ICANN and Scott
Hollenbeck of Verisign Labs.
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to this document: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet,
Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Byron J. Ellacott, Behnam
Esfahbod, John Klensin, John Levine, Edward Lewis, Mario Loffredo,
Patrick Mevzek, Mark Nottingham, Kaveh Ranjbar, Arturo L. Servin,
Steve Sheng, Jasdip Singh, and Andrew Sullivan.
Changes from RFC 7482
00: Initial version ported from RFC 7482. Added Implementation * Addressed known errata.
Status section. Addressed known errata.
01: Addressed other reported clarifications and corrections: IDN/ * Addressed other reported clarifications and corrections: IDN,
IDNA definition, note that registrars are entities, definition of IDNA, and DNR definitions. Noted that registrars are entities.
"DNR", RFC 8521 to address bootstrap registry limitation, removal Added a reference to RFC 8521 to address the bootstrap registry
of extraneous "...", HTTP query string clarification, search limitation. Removed extraneous "...". Clarified HTTP query
pattern clarification, name server search clarification, domain string, search pattern, name server search, domain label suffix,
label suffix and asterisk search clarification. and asterisk search.
02: Addressed "The HTTP query string" clarification. * Addressed "The HTTP query string" clarification.
03: Modified co-author address. * Modified coauthor address.
04: Updated references to 7483 to 7483bis Internet-Draft. Updated * Updated references to RFC 7483 to RFC 9083.
"Change Log" to "Changes from RFC 7482". Added more detail to the
changes made in the -01 version.
05: Added an empty IANA Considerations section to satisfy IDNits. * Added an IANA Considerations section. Changed references to use
Changed references to use HTTPS for targets. Split ARIN and HTTPS for targets.
NicInfo implementation status into two sections.
06: Changed "XXXX is a search pattern representing the "FN" property * Changed "XXXX is a search pattern representing the "FN" property
of an entity (such as a contact, registrant, or registrar) name as of an entity (such as a contact, registrant, or registrar) name as
specified in Section 5.1" to "Changed "XXXX is a search pattern specified in Section 5.1" to "Changed "XXXX is a search pattern
representing the "fn" property of an entity (such as a contact, representing the "fn" property of an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) name as described in Section 5.1". registrant, or registrar) name as described in Section 5.1".
00: Initial working group version. Added acknowledgements. * Added acknowledgments.
01: Changed "The intent of the patterns described here are to enable * Changed "The intent of the patterns described here are to enable
queries" to "The intent of the patterns described here is to queries" to "The intent of the patterns described here is to
enable queries". Changed "the corresponding syntax extension in enable queries".
RFC 6874 [RFC6874] MUST NOT be used, and servers are to ignore it
if possible" to "the corresponding syntax extension in RFC 6874 * Changed "the corresponding syntax extension in RFC 6874 [RFC6874]
[RFC6874] MUST NOT be used, and servers SHOULD ignore it". MUST NOT be used, and servers are to ignore it if possible" to
Changed "Only a single asterisk is allowed for a partial string "the corresponding syntax extension in RFC 6874 [RFC6874] MUST NOT
be used, and servers SHOULD ignore it".
* Changed "Only a single asterisk is allowed for a partial string
search" to "A partial string search MUST NOT include more than one search" to "A partial string search MUST NOT include more than one
asterisk". Changed "Clients should avoid submitting a partial asterisk".
match search of Unicode characters where a Unicode character may
be legally combined with another Unicode character or characters"
to "Clients SHOULD NOT submit a partial match search of Unicode
characters where a Unicode character may be legally combined with
another Unicode character or characters".
02: Changed description of nameserver IP address "search pattern" in * Changed "Clients should avoid submitting a partial match search of
Unicode characters where a Unicode character may be legally
combined with another Unicode character or characters" to "Clients
SHOULD NOT submit a partial match search of Unicode characters
where a Unicode character may be legally combined with another
Unicode character or characters".
* Changed description of nameserver IP address "search pattern" in
Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
* IESG review feedback: Added "obsoletes 7482" to the headers,
Abstract, and Introduction. Changed "IETF standards" to "IETF
specifications" and "Therefore" to "Accordingly" in Section 1.
Updated the BCP 14 boilerplate. Added definition of "bootstrap
registry" and changed "concatenating ... to" to "concatenating ...
with" in Section 3. Changed "bitmask length" to "prefix length"
and "2001:db8::0" to "2001:db8::" in Section 3.1.1. Added "in
contrast to the more generic HTTP query string that admits
multiple simultaneous parameters" in Section 3.2. Changed
"0x002A" to "0x2A" in Section 4.1. Clarified use of HTTP 422
SHOULD in Section 4.1.
Acknowledgments
This document is derived from original work on RIR query formats
developed by Byron J. Ellacott of APNIC, Arturo L. Servin of LACNIC,
Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN.
Additionally, this document incorporates DNR query formats originally
described by Francisco Arias and Steve Sheng of ICANN and Scott
Hollenbeck of Verisign Labs.
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to this document: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet,
Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Byron J. Ellacott, Behnam
Esfahbod, John Klensin, John Levine, Edward Lewis, Mario Loffredo,
Patrick Mevzek, Mark Nottingham, Kaveh Ranjbar, Arturo L. Servin,
Steve Sheng, Jasdip Singh, and Andrew Sullivan.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Scott Hollenbeck Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way 12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190 Reston, VA 20190
United States of America United States of America
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: https://www.verisignlabs.com/ URI: https://www.verisignlabs.com/
Andy Newton Andy Newton
Amazon Web Services, Inc. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
13200 Woodland Park Road 13200 Woodland Park Road
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
United States of America United States of America
Email: andy@hxr.us Email: andy@hxr.us
 End of changes. 94 change blocks. 
397 lines changed or deleted 228 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/