draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-05.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-06.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: December 14, 2013 Verisign Labs Expires: February 17, 2014 Verisign Labs
June 12, 2013 August 16, 2013
Registration Data Access Protocol Lookup Format Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-05 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-06
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 December 14, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 5
3.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Search Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 IDN: Internationalized Domain Name
skipping to change at page 3, line 18 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
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: are to enable queries of:
o networks by IP address, o networks by IP address,
o autonomous system numbers by number, o autonomous system numbers by number,
o reverse DNS meta-data by domain, o reverse DNS meta-data by domain,
o name servers by name, o name servers by name,
o registrars by name, and o registrars by name, and
o entities (such as contacts) by identifier. o entities (such as contacts) by identifier.
It is envisioned that each registry will continue to maintain NICNAME It is envisioned that each registry will continue to maintain NICNAME
/WHOIS and/or RESTful web services specific to their needs and those /WHOIS and/or RESTful web services specific to their needs and those
of their constituencies, and the information retrieved through the of their constituencies, and the information retrieved through the
patterns described here may reference such services. 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. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is
query). And Section 4 defines a simple pattern namespacing scheme to described in Section 5 to accomodate custom extensions that will not
accomodate custom extensions that will not interfere with the interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns
patterns defined in this document or patterns defined in future IETF 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 specified in this document are only applicable to [RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to
the HTTP [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. JSON [RFC4627] result
other documents will describe these entities in various serialization formatting and processing is described in
formats, such as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON, [RFC4627]). [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
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. Specified have to make choices based on local criteria. Specified
authentication mechanisms MUST use HTTP. authentication mechanisms MUST use HTTP.
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. http:// The base URL may contain its own path segments (e.g. http://
example.com/... or http://example.com/restful-WHOIS/... ). The example.com/... or http://example.com/rdap/... ). The characters
characters used to form a path segment are limited to those that can used to form a path segment are limited to those that can be used to
be used to form a URI as specified in RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. form a URI as specified in RFC 3986 [RFC3986].
The resource type path segments are: 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification
o 'ip': IP networks and associated data referenced using either an The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are:
IPv4 or IPv6 address.
o 'autnum': Autonomous system registrations and associated data
referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system number.
o 'domain': Reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR) information and
associated data referenced using a fully-qualified domain name.
o 'nameserver': Used to identify a name server information query.
o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query.
3.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification o 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced
using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.
o 'autnum': Used to identify autonomous system registrations and
associated data referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system
number.
o 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR)
information and associated data referenced using a fully-qualified
domain name.
o 'nameserver': Used to identify a name server information query
using a host name.
o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query using a
string identifier.
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/... 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 The IPv4 and IPv6 address formats supported in this query are
described in section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986], as IPv4address and described in section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986], as IPv4address and
IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format
skipping to change at page 5, line 23 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
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 This is an example URL for the most specific network containing
2001:db8:1:1::1: 2001:db8:1:1::1:
/ip/2001:db8:1:1::1 /ip/2001:db8:1:1::1
3.2. 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
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 The following path would be used to find information on 4-byte
autonomous system number 65538: autonomous system number 65538:
/autnum/65538 /autnum/65538
3.3. 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/..., 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 either A-label or Internationalized domain names represented in either A-label or
U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain names. IDN labels U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain names. IDN labels
SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels. SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels.
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 46
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
The following path would be used to find information for the The following path would be used to find information for the
xn--xemple-9ua.example IDN: xn--xemple-9ua.example IDN:
/domain/xn--xemple-9ua.example /domain/xn--xemple-9ua.example
3.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification 3.1.4. 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 either A-label or U-label Internationalized names represented in either A-label or U-label
format [RFC5890] are also valid name server names. IDN labels SHOULD format [RFC5890] are also valid name server names. IDN labels SHOULD
NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels. NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels.
If the client sends the server an IDN in U-label format, servers that If the client sends the server an IDN in U-label format, servers that
support IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform support IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform
IDNA processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server IDNA processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server
should perform an exact match lookup using the A-label. 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 24
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 The following path would be used to find information for the
ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.example name server: ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.example name server:
/nameserver/ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.example /nameserver/ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.example
3.5. 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. 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
3.6. 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 path would be used to successfully use the service. The following path would be used to
return "help" information: return "help" information:
/help /help
4. Extensibility 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification
The resource type path segments for search are:
o 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using
a pattern to match a fully-qualified domain name.
o 'nameservers': Used to identify a name server information search
using a pattern to match a host name.
o 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a
pattern to match a string identifier.
RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the
plural form of the object being searched for, a forward slash
character ('/', ASCII value 0x002F), and an HTTP query string. The
HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the question
mark character ('?', ASCII value 0x003F), the JSON object value
associated with the object being searched for, the equal sign
character ('=', ASCII value 0x003D), and the search pattern. For the
domain and entity objects described in this document the plural
object forms are "domains" and "entities".
3.2.1. Domain Search
Syntax: domains/?ldhName=<domain search pattern>
Searches for domain information are of the form /domains/
?ldhName=XXXX, where XXXX is a search pattern representing a domain
name in "letters, digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone
administered by the server operator of a DNR. The following path
would be used to find DNR information for domain names matching the
"example*.com" pattern:
/domains/?ldhName=example*.com
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in U-label format [RFC5890] can
also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these
names are of the form /domains/?unicodeName=XXXX, where XXXX is a
search pattern representing a domain name in U-label format
[RFC5890].
3.2.2. Name Server Search
Syntax: nameservers/?ldhName=<nameserver search pattern>
Searches for name server information are of the form /nameservers/
?ldhName=XXXX, where XXXX is a search pattern representing a host
name in "letters, digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone
administered by the server operator of a DNR. The following path
would be used to find DNR information for name server names matching
the "ns1.example*.com" pattern:
/nameservers/?ldhName=ns1.example*.com
Internationalized name server names in U-label format [RFC5890] can
also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these
names are of the form /nameservers/?unicodeName=XXXX, where XXXX is a
search pattern representing a name server name in U-label format
[RFC5890].
3.2.3. Entity Search
Syntax: entities/?fn=<entity search pattern>
Searches for entity information are of the form /entities/?fn=XXXX,
where XXXX is a search pattern representing an entity name as
specified in Section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. The
following path would be used to find information for entity names
matching the "Bobby Joe*" pattern.
/entities/?fn=Bobby%20Joe*
URLs MUST be properly encoded according to the rules of [RFC3986].
In the example above, "Bobby Joe*" is encoded to "Bobby%20Joe*".
4. Search Processing
Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', ASCII value 0x002A)
character to match zero or more trailing characters. Additional
pattern matching processing is beyond the scope of this
specification.
If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request
because it does not support a particular style of partial match
searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 [RFC4918] error. When
returning a 422 error, the server MAY also return an error response
body as specified in Section 12 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if
the requested media type is one that is specified in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Because Unicode characters may be combined with another Unicode
character or characters, partial matching is not feasible across
combinations of Unicode characters. Servers SHOULD NOT partially
match combinations of Unicode characters where a Unicode character
may be legally combined with another Unicode character or characters.
Clients MUST NOT issue a partial match search of Unicode characters
where a Unicode character may be legally combined with another
Unicode character or characters. Partial match searches with
incomplete combinations of characters where a character must be
combined with another character or characters are invalid. Partial
match searches with characters that may be combined with another
character or characters are to be considered non-combined characters
(that is, if character x maybe combined with character y but
character y is not submitted in the search string then character x is
a complete character and no combinations of character x are to
searched).
Because Unicode characters may be combined with another Unicode
character or characters, partial matching requires that a server
maintain a list of valid character combinations to be considered a
match. When comparing DNS U-labels, servers SHOULD use the code
points specified in [RFC5892] to determine partial matches. When
comparing entity names, servers SHOULD use the normalization rules
and code points specified by [I-D.ietf-precis-nickname] to determine
partial matches.
Clients SHOULD NOT submit search requests with partial matching for
DNS A-labels starting with 'xn--'. A-labels of this type represent
an encoding that can only be reconstructed properly when the label is
complete.
5. 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 for objects not specified here using the process described in
Section TBD of "Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet Section TBD of "Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet
Registries" [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 6. 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 capable of label) as a query argument to an RDAP service. Clients capable of
processing non-ASCII characters may prefer a U-label since this is processing non-ASCII characters may prefer a U-label since this is
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 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 7. IANA Considerations
This document does not specify any IANA actions. This document does not specify any IANA actions.
7. 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" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]. Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec].
8. Acknowledgements Search functionality typically requires more server resources (such
as memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to basic
lookup functionality. This increases the risk of server resource
exhaustion and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. This risk
can be mitigated by developing and implementing controls to restrict
search functionality to identified and authorized clients. If those
clients behave badly, their search privileges can be suspended or
revoked. Rate limiting as described in Section 5.5 of "Using the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) with HTTP"
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] can also be used to control the rate of
received search requests. Server operators can also reduce their
risk by restricting the amount of information returned in response to
a search request.
9. 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: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet, their contributions to this document: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet,
Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Behnam Esfahbod, Edward Lewis, Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Behnam Esfahbod, Edward Lewis,
and John Levine. and John Levine.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-precis-nickname]
Saint-Andre, P., "Preparation and Comparison of
Nicknames", draft-ietf-precis-nickname-06 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[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)", draft-ietf- Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-json-response-04 (work in progress), June 2013. weirds-json-response-04 (work in progress), June 2013.
[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", draft-ietf-weirds- Registration Data Access Protocol", draft-ietf-weirds-
rdap-sec-04 (work in progress), June 2013. rdap-sec-04 (work in progress), June 2013.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf- Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-using-http-05 (work in progress), May 2013. weirds-using-http-07 (work in progress), July 2013.
[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 23 skipping to change at page 13, line 15
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 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.
[RFC4918] Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007.
[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.
[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 [RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010. Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.
[RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and
Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 5892, 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 10.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the [REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the
Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet
Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002. 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 [RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
March 2005. 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.
Appendix A. Path Segment Specification for Search Queries Appendix A. Change Log
All of the path segments described in this document identify patterns
for exact-match lookups of data elements. We have explicitly omitted
specifications for search queries in the interest of first focusing
on more basic protocol operations. Once we understand how exact-
match queries will work we will attempt to define specifications for
search queries in other documents.
It is important to note that there are already multiple
implementations of RESTful RDAP-like prototypes that provide search
capabilities. For example:
ARIN: The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) has
published an API [1] (see Section 4.4.2) that describes using
plural forms of path segment identifiers (e.g. "domains") and
Matrix URIs [2] to indicate that a client is requesting a list of
values when searching for RIR registration data. A prototype
service [3] that implements this API is up and running.
Verisign: Verisign has deployed a prototype service [4] that
implements searches for DNR registration data using HTML query
strings (e.g. "?_PRE") to identify search parameters. For
example, "http://dnrd.verisignlabs.com/dnrd-ap/domain/
verisign?_PRE" performs a search for domain names with a
"verisign" prefix.
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
skipping to change at page 12, line 14 skipping to change at page 14, line 33
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 -03: Changed 'query' to 'lookup' in document title to better
describe the 'exact match lookup' purpose of this document. describe the 'exact match lookup' purpose of this document.
Included a multitude of minor additions and clarifications Included a multitude of minor additions and clarifications
provided by Marc Blanchet and Jean-Philippe Dionne. Modified the provided by Marc Blanchet and Jean-Philippe Dionne. Modified the
domain and name server sections to include support for IDN domain and name server sections to include support for IDN
U-labels. U-labels.
-04: Updated the domain and name server sections to use .example IDN -04: Updated the domain and name server sections to use .example IDN
U-labels. Added text to note that mixed IDN labels SHOULD NOT be U-labels. Added text to note that mixed IDN labels SHOULD NOT be
used. Fixed broken sentences in Section 5. used. Fixed broken sentences in Section 6.
-05: Added "help" path segment. -05: Added "help" path segment.
-06: Added search text and removed or edited old search text.
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. 34 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 221 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/