draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Newton Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft ARIN Internet-Draft ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck
Expires: March 23, 2013 Verisign Labs Expires: May 30, 2013 Verisign Labs
September 19, 2012 November 26, 2012
Unified Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format Unified Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-00 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-01
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. Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 5 3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries . . . . 9
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
DNR: Domain Name Registry
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
RIR: Regional Internet Registry
2. 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)
[RFC2616]. [RFC2616].
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:
skipping to change at page 4, line 6 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
divergent methods covering these functions, and it is unlikely a divergent methods covering these functions, and it is unlikely a
uniform approach for these functions will ever be possible. uniform approach for these functions will ever be possible.
While HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients While HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients
and for clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization and for clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization
schemes may be built), both authentication of clients and servers and schemes may be built), both authentication of clients and servers and
authorization for access to data are out-of-scope of this document. authorization for access to data are out-of-scope of this document.
In general, these matters require "policy" and are not the domain of In general, these matters require "policy" and are not the domain of
technical standards bodies. technical standards bodies.
2. Path Segment Specification 3. Path Segment Specification
The uniform patterns start with a base URL [RFC3986] specified by The uniform patterns start with a base URL [RFC3986] specified by
each registry or any other service provider offering this service. each registry or any other service provider offering this service.
The base URL will be appended with resource type specific path The base URL will be appended with resource type specific path
segments. The base URL may contain its own path segments (e.g. segments. The base URL may contain its own path segments (e.g.
http://example.com/... or http://example.com/restful-WHOIS/... ). http://example.com/... or http://example.com/restful-WHOIS/... ).
The resource type path segments are: The resource type path segments are:
o 'ip': IP networks and associated data referenced using either an o 'ip': IP networks and associated data referenced using either an
IPv4 or IPv6 address. IPv4 or IPv6 address.
o 'autnum': Autonomous system registrations and associated data o 'autnum': Autonomous system registrations and associated data
referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system number. referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system number.
o 'domain': Reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR) information and o 'domain': Reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR) information and
associated data referenced using a fully-qualified domain name. associated data referenced using a fully-qualified domain name.
o 'nameserver': Used to identify a name server information query. o 'nameserver': Used to identify a name server information query.
o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query. o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query.
2.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification 3.1. 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/... 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 or /ip/XXX/YY/... where the path segment following 'ip' is either an
IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e. XXX) or an IPv4 or IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e. XXX) or an IPv4 or
IPv6 CIDR [RFC4632] notation address block (i.e. XXX/YY). IPv6 CIDR [RFC4632] notation address block (i.e. XXX/YY).
Semantically, the simpler form using the address can be thought of as Semantically, the simpler form using the address can be thought of as
a CIDR block with a length of 32 for IPv4 and a length of 128 for a CIDR block with a length of 32 for IPv4 and a length of 128 for
IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall within multiple IP IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall within multiple IP
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 17
This is an example URL for the most specific network containing This is an example URL for the most specific network containing
192.0.2.0: 192.0.2.0:
/ip/192.0.2.0 /ip/192.0.2.0
This is an example of a URL the most specific network containing This is an example of a URL the most specific network containing
192.0.2.0/24: 192.0.2.0/24:
/ip/192.0.2.0/24 /ip/192.0.2.0/24
2.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification 3.2. 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 registrations are of the form /autnum/XXX/... where XXX is an
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 is such that if a number falls numbers. The semantics of this query is 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.
For example, to find information on autonomous system number 65551, For example, to find information on autonomous system number 65551,
the following path would be used: the following path would be used:
/autnum/65551 /autnum/65551
2.3. Domain Path Segment Specification 3.3. Domain Path Segment Specification
Syntax: domain/<domain name> Syntax: domain/<domain name>
Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX/..., Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX/...,
where XXXX is a fully-qualified domain name [RFC4343] in either the where XXXX is a fully-qualified domain name [RFC4343] in either the
in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified domain in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified domain
name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs). name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs).
Internationalized domain names represented in A-label format Internationalized domain names represented in A-label format
[RFC5890] are also valid domain names. [RFC5890] are also valid domain names.
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
where XXXX is a fully-qualified domain name [RFC4343] in either the where XXXX is a fully-qualified domain name [RFC4343] in either the
in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified domain in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified domain
name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs). name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs).
Internationalized domain names represented in A-label format Internationalized domain names represented in A-label format
[RFC5890] are also valid domain names. [RFC5890] are also valid domain names.
The following path would be used to find information describing the The following path would be used to find information describing the
zone serving the network 192.0.2/24: zone serving the network 192.0.2/24:
/domain/2.0.192.in-addr.arpa /domain/2.0.192.in-addr.arpa
The following path would be used to find information for the The following path would be used to find information for the
example.com domain name: example.com domain name:
/domain/example.com /domain/example.com
2.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification 3.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification
Syntax: nameserver/<name server name> Syntax: nameserver/<name server name>
The <name server name> parameter represents a fully qualified name as The <name server name> parameter represents a fully qualified name as
specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123]. specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123].
Internationalized names represented in A-label format [RFC5890] are Internationalized names represented in A-label format [RFC5890] are
also valid name server names. also valid name server names.
The following path would be used to find information for the The following path would be used to find information for the
ns1.example.com name server: ns1.example.com name server:
/nameserver/ns1.example.com /nameserver/ns1.example.com
2.5. Entity Path Segment Specification 3.5. 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. For example, for some DNRs registrant, or registrar) identifier. For example, for some DNRs
contact identifiers are specified in RFC 5730 [RFC5730] and RFC 5733 contact identifiers are specified in RFC 5730 [RFC5730] and RFC 5733
[RFC5733]. [RFC5733].
The following path would be used to find information for the entity The following path would be used to find information for the entity
associated with handle CID-4005: associated with handle CID-4005:
/entity/CID-4005 /entity/CID-4005
3. Extensibility 4. Extensibility
This document describes path segment specifications for a limited This document describes path segment specifications for a limited
number of objects commonly registered in both RIRs and DNRs. It does number of objects commonly registered in both RIRs and DNRs. It does
not attempt to describe path segments for all of the objects not attempt to describe path segments for all of the objects
registered in all registries. Custom path segments can be created registered in all registries. Custom path segments can be created
for objects not specified here using the process described in Section for objects not specified here using the process described in Section
TBD of "Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet Registries" TBD of "Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet Registries"
[I-D.draft-ietf-weirds-using-http]. [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a
unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For
example, a custom entity path segment could be created by prefixing example, a custom entity path segment could be created by prefixing
"entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity". Servers SHOULD "entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity". Servers SHOULD
ignore unrecognized path segments. ignore unrecognized path segments.
4. Internationalization Considerations 5. Internationalization Considerations
There is value in supporting the ability to submit either a U-label There is value in supporting the ability to submit either a U-label
(Unicode form of an IDN label) or an A-label (ASCII form of an IDN (Unicode form of an IDN label) or an A-label (ASCII form of an IDN
label) as a query argument to an RDAP service. Clients with label) as a query argument to an RDAP service. Clients with
graphical user interfaces may prefer a U-label since this is more graphical user interfaces may prefer a U-label since this is more
visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but clients visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but clients
of programmatic interfaces may wish to submit and display A-labels or of programmatic interfaces may wish to submit and display A-labels or
may not be able to input U-labels with their keyboard configuration. may not be able to input U-labels with their keyboard configuration.
In the interest of protocol simplicity, A-labels (the "wire format" In the interest of protocol simplicity, A-labels (the "wire format"
of IDNs) are the only labels supported by this specification. of IDNs) are the only labels supported by this specification.
Internationalized domain and name server names can contain character Internationalized domain and name server names can contain character
variants and variant labels as described in RFC 4290 [RFC4290]. variants and variant labels as described in RFC 4290 [RFC4290].
Clients that support queries for internationalized domain and name Clients that support queries for internationalized domain and name
server names MUST accept service provider responses that describe server names MUST accept service provider responses that describe
variants as specified in "JSON Responses for the Registy Data Access variants as specified in "JSON Responses for the Registration Data
Protocol" [I-D.draft-ietf-weirds-json-response]. Access Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
5. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document does not specify any IANA actions. This document does not specify any IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Need text here. Security services for the operations specified in this document are
described in "Security Services for the Registration Data Access
Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]. As we identify specific use
cases for which security services are needed they will be described
here.
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
This document is derived from original work on RIR query formats This document is derived from original work on RIR query formats
developed by Byron J. Ellacott of APNIC, Arturo L. Servin of LACNIC, developed by Byron J. Ellacott of APNIC, Arturo L. Servin of LACNIC,
Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN. Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN.
Additionally, this document incorporates DNR query formats originally Additionally, this document incorporates DNR query formats originally
described by Francisco Arias and Steve Sheng of ICANN and Scott described by Francisco Arias and Steve Sheng of ICANN and Scott
Hollenbeck of Verisign. Hollenbeck of Verisign.
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to this document: TBD. their contributions to this document: TBD.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-weirds-json-response] [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registy Data Access Protocol", Registy Data Access Protocol (RDAP)",
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-00 (work in progress),
September 2012. September 2012.
[I-D.draft-ietf-weirds-using-http] [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "Using HTTP for Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
RESTful Whois Services by Internet Registries", Registration Data Access Protocol",
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "Using the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) with HTTP",
draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-00 (work in progress),
September 2012. September 2012.
[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, October 1985. host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC1166] Kirkpatrick, S., Stahl, M., and M. Recker, "Internet [RFC1166] Kirkpatrick, S., Stahl, M., and M. Recker, "Internet
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, August 2009. Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, August 2009.
[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, August 2010. RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004. September 2004.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for [RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
URIs URIs
[1] <https://www.arin.net/resources/whoisrws/whois_api.html> [1] <https://www.arin.net/resources/whoisrws/whois_api.html>
skipping to change at page 10, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 29
"http://dnrd.verisignlabs.com/dnrd-ap/domain/verisign?_PRE" "http://dnrd.verisignlabs.com/dnrd-ap/domain/verisign?_PRE"
performs a search for domain names with a "verisign" prefix. performs a search for domain names with a "verisign" prefix.
The specifications that are eventually added to this document will The specifications that are eventually added to this document will
likely combine features from these and other examples of running likely combine features from these and other examples of running
code. code.
Appendix B. Change Log Appendix B. Change Log
Initial -00: Adopted as working group document. Initial -00: Adopted as working group document.
-01: Added "Conventions Used in This Document" section. Added
normative reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec and some
wrapping text in the Security Considerations section.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Andrew Lee Newton Andrew Lee Newton
American Registry for Internet Numbers American Registry for Internet Numbers
3635 Concorde Parkway 3635 Concorde Parkway
Chantilly, VA 20151 Chantilly, VA 20151
US US
Email: andy@arin.net Email: andy@arin.net
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 75 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/