draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-01.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-02.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: May 30, 2013 Verisign Labs Expires: June 21, 2013 Verisign Labs
November 26, 2012 December 18, 2012
Unified Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-01 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-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. 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 May 30, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
all of the RIRs and DNRs. The intent of the patterns described here all of the RIRs and DNRs. The intent of the patterns described here
are to enable lookups of networks by IP address, autonomous system are to enable lookups of networks by IP address, autonomous system
numbers by number, reverse DNS meta-data by domain, domains by name, numbers by number, reverse DNS meta-data by domain, domains by name,
name servers by name, registrars by name, and entities (such as name servers by name, registrars by name, and entities (such as
contacts) by identifier. It is envisioned that each registry will contacts) by identifier. It is envisioned that each registry will
continue to maintain NICNAME/WHOIS and/or RESTful web services continue to maintain NICNAME/WHOIS and/or 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
additional query types (for example, "/domains" for a domain search
query). And Section 4 defines a simple pattern namespacing scheme to
accomodate custom extensions that will not interfere with the
patterns defined in this document or patterns defined in future IETF
standards.
WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore URL WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore URL
[RFC3986] patterns presented here are only applicable to the HTTP [RFC3986] patterns presented here are only applicable to the HTTP
[RFC2616] GET and HEAD methods. [RFC2616] 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. It is envisioned that issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET. It is envisioned that
other documents will describe these entities in various serialization other documents will describe these entities in various serialization
formats, such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON, [RFC4627]). formats, such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON, [RFC4627]).
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 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 HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients and for
and for clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization schemes may
schemes may be built), both authentication of clients and servers and be built) so such mechanisms are not described in this document.
authorization for access to data are out-of-scope of this document. Policy, provisioning, and processing of authentication and
In general, these matters require "policy" and are not the domain of authorization are out-of-scope for this document as deployments will
technical standards bodies. have to make choices based on local criteria. So long as the
solution chosen makes use of the HTTP mechanisms, implementations
ought to be interoperable.
3. 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 is followed by a resource-type-specific path segment.
segments. The base URL may contain its own path segments (e.g. 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.
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
3.1. 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 bitmask length of 32 for IPv4 and a bitmask
IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall within multiple IP length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall
networks in a hierarchy of networks, therefore this query targets the within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy of networks, therefore
"most-specific" or lowest IP network which completely encompasses it this query targets the "most-specific" or smallest IP network which
in a hierarchy of IP networks. completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of IP networks.
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
3.2. 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 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 is 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.
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
3.3. Domain Path Segment Specification 3.3. Domain Path Segment Specification
skipping to change at page 6, line 50 skipping to change at page 7, line 8
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.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 MUST
ignore unrecognized path segments. return an appropriate failure status code for a request with an
unrecognized path segment.
5. 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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 47 skipping to change at page 8, line 8
8. 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: Francisco Arias, Edward Lewis,
and John Levine.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.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 (RDAP)", Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)",
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-01 (work in progress),
September 2012. December 2012.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec] [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]
Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol", Registration Data Access Protocol",
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-01 (work in progress),
September 2012. November 2012.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "Using the Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "Using the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) with HTTP", Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) with HTTP",
draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-01 (work in progress),
September 2012. December 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
numbers", RFC 1166, July 1990. numbers", RFC 1166, July 1990.
skipping to change at page 10, line 9 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
for exact-match lookups of data elements. We have explicitly omitted for exact-match lookups of data elements. We have explicitly omitted
specifications for search queries in the interest of first focusing specifications for search queries in the interest of first focusing
on more basic protocol operations. Once we understand how exact- on more basic protocol operations. Once we understand how exact-
match queries will work we will attempt to define specifications for match queries will work we will attempt to define specifications for
search queries. search queries.
It is important to note that there are already multiple It is important to note that there are already multiple
implementations of RESTful RDAP-like prototypes that provide search implementations of RESTful RDAP-like prototypes that provide search
capabilities. For example: capabilities. For example:
The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) has published an ARIN: The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) has
API [1] (see Section 4.4.2) that describes using plural forms of published an API [1] (see Section 4.4.2) that describes using
path segment identifiers (e.g. "domains") and Matrix URIs [2] to plural forms of path segment identifiers (e.g. "domains") and
indicate that a client is requesting a list of values when Matrix URIs [2] to indicate that a client is requesting a list of
searching for RIR registration data. A prototype service [3] that values when searching for RIR registration data. A prototype
implements this API is up and running. service [3] that implements this API is up and running.
Verisign: Verisign has deployed a prototype service [4] that
Verisign has deployed a prototype service [4] that implements implements searches for DNR registration data using HTML query
searches for DNR registration data using HTML query strings (e.g. strings (e.g. "?_PRE") to identify search parameters. For
"?_PRE") to identify search parameters. For example, example,
"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
likely combine features from these and other examples of running
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 -01: Added "Conventions Used in This Document" section. Added
normative reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec and some normative reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec and some
wrapping text in the Security Considerations section. wrapping text in the Security Considerations section.
-02: Removed "unified" from the title. Rewrote the last paragraph
of section 2. Edited the first paragraph of section 3 to more
clearly note that only one path segement is provided. Added
"bitmask" to "length" in section 3.1. Changed "lowest IP network"
to "smallest IP network" in section 3.1. Added "asplain" to the
description of autonomous system numbers in section 3.2. Minor
change from "semantics is" to "semantics are" in section 3.2.
Changed the last sentence in section 4 to more clearly specify
error response behavior. Added acknowledgements. Added a
paragraph in the introduction regarding future IETF standards and
extensibility.
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. 17 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 62 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/