draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-02.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-03.txt 
Network Working Group A. Newton Network Working Group A.L. Newton
Internet-Draft ARIN Internet-Draft ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck
Expires: June 21, 2013 Verisign Labs Expires: September 15, 2013 Verisign Labs
December 18, 2012 March 14, 2013
Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format Registration Data Access Protocol Lookup Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-02 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-03
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
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 June 21, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . . . 5
3.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries . . . . 9 Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries . . . 10
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Conventions Used in This Document 1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations 1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
IDN: Internationalized Domain Name
IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
DNR: Domain Name Registry DNR: Domain Name Registry
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
REST: Representational State Transfer 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.
RIR: Regional Internet Registry RIR: Regional Internet Registry
2. Introduction 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 18
o Lack of standardized command structures, o Lack of standardized command structures,
o lack of standardized output and error structures, o lack of standardized output and error structures,
o lack of support for internationalization and localization, and o lack of support for internationalization and localization, and
o lack of support for user identification, authentication, and o 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 RESTful web services of all of the methods employed in the WHOIS and RESTful web services of
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:
numbers by number, reverse DNS meta-data by domain, domains by name,
name servers by name, registrars by name, and entities (such as o networks by IP address,
contacts) by identifier. It is envisioned that each registry will o autonomous system numbers by number,
continue to maintain NICNAME/WHOIS and/or RESTful web services o reverse DNS meta-data by domain,
specific to their needs and those of their constituencies, and the o name servers by name,
information retrieved through the patterns described here may o registrars by name, and
reference such services. o entities (such as contacts) by identifier.
It is envisioned that each registry will continue to maintain NICNAME
/WHOIS and/or RESTful web services specific to their needs and those
of their constituencies, and the information retrieved through the
patterns described here may reference such services.
Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for
additional query types (for example, "/domains" for a domain search additional query types (for example, "/domains" for a domain search
query). And Section 4 defines a simple pattern namespacing scheme to query). And Section 4 defines a simple pattern namespacing scheme to
accomodate custom extensions that will not interfere with the accomodate custom extensions that will not interfere with the
patterns defined in this document or patterns defined in future IETF patterns defined in this document or patterns defined in future IETF
standards. 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 specified in this document are only applicable to
[RFC2616] GET and HEAD methods. the HTTP [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.
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. So long as the have to make choices based on local criteria. Specified
solution chosen makes use of the HTTP mechanisms, implementations authentication mechanisms MUST use HTTP.
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 is followed by a resource-type-specific path segment. The base URL is followed by a resource-type-specific path segment.
The base URL may contain its own path segments (e.g. The base URL may contain its own path segments (e.g. http://
http://example.com/... or http://example.com/restful-WHOIS/... ). example.com/... or http://example.com/restful-WHOIS/... ). The
characters used to form a path segment are limited to those that can
be used to form a URI as specified in RFC 3986 [RFC3986].
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.
3.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification 3.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 4, line 39
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.
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 bitmask length of 32 for IPv4 and a bitmask a CIDR block with a bitmask length of 32 for IPv4 and a bitmask
length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall
within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy of networks, therefore within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy of networks, therefore
this query targets the "most-specific" or smallest IP network which this query targets the "most-specific" or smallest IP network which
completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of IP networks. completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of IP networks.
The IPv4 and IPv6 address formats supported in this query are
described in section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986], as IPv4address and
IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format
[RFC4291] can be used, compressed or not compressed. The restricted
rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are
not mandatory. However, the zone id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in
this context and therefore prohibited.
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
This is an example URL for the most specific network containing
2001:db8:1:1::1:
/ip/2001:db8:1:1::1
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 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.
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
The following path would be used to find information on 4-byte
autonomous system number 65538:
/autnum/65538
3.3. 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 either A-label or
[RFC5890] are also valid domain names. U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain names.
If the client sends the server an IDN U-label, servers that support
IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform IDNA
processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server should
perform an exact match lookup using the A-label.
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 describing the
zone serving the network 2001:db8:1::/48:
/domain/1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.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
3.4. 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 either A-label or U-label
also valid name server names. format [RFC5890] are also valid name server names.
If the client sends the server an IDN U-label, servers that support
IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform IDNA
processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server should
perform an exact match lookup using the A-label.
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
The following path would be used to find information for the IDN
ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.com name server:
/nameserver/ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.com
3.5. 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
4. 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
TBD of "Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet Registries" Section TBD of "Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. Registries" [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 MUST "entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity". Servers MUST
return an appropriate failure status code for a request with an return an appropriate failure status code for a request with an
unrecognized path segment. 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 capable of
graphical user interfaces may prefer a U-label since this is more processing non-ASCII characters may prefer a U-label since this is
visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but clients more visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but
of programmatic interfaces may wish to submit and display A-labels or clients of programmatic interfaces may wish to submit and display
may not be able to input U-labels with their keyboard configuration. A-labels or may not be able to input U-labels with their keyboard
In the interest of protocol simplicity, A-labels (the "wire format" configuration. .
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 Registration Data variants as specified in "JSON Responses for the Registration Data
Access Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. Access Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
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" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]. As we identify specific use Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]. As we identify specific use
cases for which security services are needed they will be described cases for which security services are needed they will be described
here. here.
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
Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN. LACNIC, 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: Francisco Arias, Edward Lewis, their contributions to this document: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet,
and John Levine. Jean-Philippe Dionne, 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
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-01 (work in progress), weirds-json-response-02 (work in progress), January 2013.
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-
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-01 (work in progress), rdap-sec-01 (work in progress), November 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-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-01 (work in progress),
December 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.
skipping to change at page 8, line 50 skipping to change at page 9, line 26
numbers", RFC 1166, July 1990. numbers", RFC 1166, July 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
RFC 3986, January 2005. 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4290] Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of [RFC4290] Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290, Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290, December
December 2005. 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4343] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity [RFC4343] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity
Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006. Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of [RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of
Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, December 2008. Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, December 2008.
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 9
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009. STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.
[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.
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, 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.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the
Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet
Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004. September 2004.
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
March 2005.
[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
[1] <https://www.arin.net/resources/whoisrws/whois_api.html>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/MatrixURIs.html>
[3] <http://whois.arin.net/ui>
[4] <http://dnrd.verisignlabs.com/dnrd-ap/>
Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries
All of the path segments described in this document identify patterns All of the path segments described in this document identify patterns
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:
ARIN: The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) has ARIN: The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) has
published an API [1] (see Section 4.4.2) that describes using published an API [1] (see Section 4.4.2) that describes using
plural forms of path segment identifiers (e.g. "domains") and plural forms of path segment identifiers (e.g. "domains") and
Matrix URIs [2] to indicate that a client is requesting a list of Matrix URIs [2] to indicate that a client is requesting a list of
values when searching for RIR registration data. A prototype values when searching for RIR registration data. A prototype
service [3] that 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: Verisign has deployed a prototype service [4] that
implements searches for DNR registration data using HTML query implements searches for DNR registration data using HTML query
strings (e.g. "?_PRE") to identify search parameters. For strings (e.g. "?_PRE") to identify search parameters. For
example, example, "http://dnrd.verisignlabs.com/dnrd-ap/domain/
"http://dnrd.verisignlabs.com/dnrd-ap/domain/verisign?_PRE" verisign?_PRE" performs a search for domain names with a
performs a search for domain names with a "verisign" prefix. "verisign" prefix.
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 -02: Removed "unified" from the title. Rewrote the last paragraph
of section 2. Edited the first paragraph of section 3 to more of section 2. Edited the first paragraph of section 3 to more
clearly note that only one path segement is provided. Added clearly note that only one path segement is provided. Added
"bitmask" to "length" in section 3.1. Changed "lowest IP network" "bitmask" to "length" in section 3.1. Changed "lowest IP network"
to "smallest IP network" in section 3.1. Added "asplain" to the to "smallest IP network" in section 3.1. Added "asplain" to the
description of autonomous system numbers in section 3.2. Minor description of autonomous system numbers in section 3.2. Minor
change from "semantics is" to "semantics are" in section 3.2. change from "semantics is" to "semantics are" in section 3.2.
Changed the last sentence in section 4 to more clearly specify Changed the last sentence in section 4 to more clearly specify
error response behavior. Added acknowledgements. Added a error response behavior. Added acknowledgements. Added a
paragraph in the introduction regarding future IETF standards and paragraph in the introduction regarding future IETF standards and
extensibility. extensibility.
-03: Changed 'query' to 'lookup' in document title to better
describe the 'exact match lookup' purpose of this document.
Included a multitude of minor additions and clarifications
provided by Marc Blanchet and Jean-Philippe Dionne. Modified the
domain and name server sections to include support for IDN
U-labels.
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. 37 change blocks. 
87 lines changed or deleted 145 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/