draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-08.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-09.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 23, 2014 Verisign Labs Expires: June 22, 2014 Verisign Labs
November 19, 2013 December 19, 2013
Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-08 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-09
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 23, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 5 3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 5
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 7 3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 7
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Search Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Search Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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
IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
DNR: Domain Name Registry DNR: Domain Name Registry
NFC: Unicode Normalization Form C
NFKC: Unicode Normalization Form KC
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
REST: Representational State Transfer State Transfer. The term REST: Representational State Transfer State Transfer. The term
was first described in a doctoral dissertation [REST]. was first described in a doctoral dissertation [REST].
RESTful: an adjective that describes a service using HTTP and the RESTful: An adjective that describes a service using HTTP and the
principles of REST. principles of REST.
RIR: Regional Internet Registry RIR: Regional Internet Registry
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].
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 20
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
Uniform query patterns start with a base URL [RFC3986] specified by RDAP queries use well-known URLs [RFC5785] with the "rdap" prefix.
each registry or any other service provider offering this service. Generally, a registry or other service provider will provide a base
The base URL is followed by a path prefix that identifies a well URL that identifies the protocol, host and port, and this will be
known [RFC5785] location for per-resource metadata, ".well-known/ used as a base URL that the well-known URL is resolved against, as
rdap". The path prefix is followed by a path segment that is per Section 5 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986].
specific to each type of resource. 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]. This specification uses the
following base URL and path prefix in examples:
http://example.com/.well-known/rdap For example, if the base URL is "http://example.com/", all RDAP query
URLs will begin with "http://example.com/.well-known/rdap".
The base URL is specific to each server implementation. The ".well- Note that path and query information in the base URL are not used,
known/rdap" path prefix MUST be present. because the well-known URL is rooted at "/.well-known/rdap"; for
example, if a registry provides "http://example.com/other/path" as a
base URL, RDAP query URLs will still begin with "http://example.com/
.well-known/rdap".
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification
The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are: The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are:
o 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced o 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced
using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address. using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.
o 'autnum': Used to identify autonomous system registrations and o 'autnum': Used to identify autonomous system registrations and
associated data referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system associated data referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system
number. number.
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
The following URL would be used to find information describing 4-byte The following URL would be used to find information describing 4-byte
autonomous system number 65538: autonomous system number 65538:
http://example.com/.well-known/rdap/autnum/65538 http://example.com/.well-known/rdap/autnum/65538
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification
Syntax: domain/<domain name> Syntax: domain/<domain name>
Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX/..., 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 (relative to the root) domain name
in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified domain [RFC1594] in either the in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or
name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs). a fully-qualified domain name in a zone administered by the server
Internationalized domain names represented in either A-label or operator (for DNRs). Internationalized domain names represented in
U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain names. IDN labels either A-label or U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain
SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels. names. IDNs SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and
U-labels; that is, any IDN SHOULD use only A-labels or only 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 URL would be used to find information describing the The following URL would be used to find information describing the
zone serving the network 192.0.2/24: zone serving the network 192.0.2/24:
http://example.com/.well-known/rdap/domain/2.0.192.in-addr.arpa http://example.com/.well-known/rdap/domain/2.0.192.in-addr.arpa
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
http://example.com/.well-known/rdap/entities?handle=CID-40* http://example.com/.well-known/rdap/entities?handle=CID-40*
URLs MUST be properly encoded according to the rules of [RFC3986]. URLs MUST be properly encoded according to the rules of [RFC3986].
In the example above, "Bobby Joe*" is encoded to "Bobby%20Joe*". In the example above, "Bobby Joe*" is encoded to "Bobby%20Joe*".
4. Search Processing 4. Search Processing
Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', ASCII value 0x002A) Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', ASCII value 0x002A)
character to match zero or more trailing characters. A character character to match zero or more trailing characters. A character
string representing a top-level domain MAY be concatenated to the end string representing multiple domain name labels MAY be concatenated
of the search pattern to limit the scope of the search. For example, to the end of the search pattern to limit the scope of the search.
the search pattern "exam*" will match "example.com" and For example, the search pattern "exam*" will match "example.com" and
"example.net". The search pattern "exam*.com" will match "example.net". The search pattern "exam*.com" will match
"example.com". Additional pattern matching processing is beyond the "example.com". Additional pattern matching processing is beyond the
scope of this specification. scope of this specification.
If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request
because it does not support a particular style of partial match because it does not support a particular style of partial match
searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 [RFC4918] error. When searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 [RFC4918] error. When
returning a 422 error, the server MAY also return an error response returning a 422 error, the server MAY also return an error response
body as specified in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if body as specified in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if
the requested media type is one that is specified in the requested media type is one that is specified in
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 11, line 7
(that is, if character x may be combined with character y but (that is, if character x may be combined with character y but
character y is not submitted in the search string then character x is character y is not submitted in the search string then character x is
a complete character and no combinations of character x are to be a complete character and no combinations of character x are to be
searched). searched).
Servers can expect to receive search patterns from clients that Servers can expect to receive search patterns from clients that
contain character strings encoded in different forms supported by contain character strings encoded in different forms supported by
HTTP. It is entirely possible to apply filters and normalization HTTP. It is entirely possible to apply filters and normalization
rules to search patterns prior to making character comparisons, but rules to search patterns prior to making character comparisons, but
this type of processing is more typically needed to determine the this type of processing is more typically needed to determine the
validity of registered strings than to match patterns. Servers validity of registered strings than to match patterns.
SHOULD thus accept any search pattern that is otherwise properly
encoded. If the pattern consists entirely of ASCII characters, An RDAP client submitting a query string containing non-US-ASCII
servers SHOULD use case-insensitive prefix matching against ASCII characters converts such strings into Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. It
labels to determine partial matches. If the text in the pattern is then performs any local case mapping deemed necessary. Strings are
or can be converted to a U-label, servers SHOULD use prefix matching normalized using Normalization Form C (NFC, [Unicode-UAX15]); note
against U-labels to determine partial matches. that clients might not be able to do this reliably.
An RDAP server treats each query string as Unicode in UTF-8 encoding.
If a string is not valid UTF-8, the server can immediately stop
processing the query and return an HTTP 400 error response code.
When processing queries, there is a difference in handling DNS names,
including those including putative U-labels, and everything else.
DNS names are treated according to the DNS matching rules as
described in Section 3.1 of RFC 1035 [RFC1035] for NR-LDH labels and
the matching rules described in Section 5.4 of RFC 5891 [RFC5891] for
U-labels. Matching of DNS names proceeds one label at a time,
because it is possible for a combination of U-labels and NR-LDH
labels to be found in a single domain or host name. The
determination of whether a label is a U-label or an NR-LDH label is
based on whether the label contains any characters outside of the US-
ASCII letters, digits, or hyphen (the so-called LDH rule).
For everything else, servers map fullwidth and halfwidth characters
to their decomposition equivalents. Servers convert strings to the
same coded character set of the target data that is to be looked up
or searched and each string is normalized using the same
normalization that was used on the target data. In general, storage
of strings as Unicode is RECOMMENDED. For the purposes of
comparison, Normalization Form KC (NFKC, [Unicode-UAX15]) with case
folding is used to maximize predictability and the number of matches.
Note the use of case-folded NFKC as opposed to NFC in this case.
Conceptually, a name-record in a database may include a link to an Conceptually, a name-record in a database may include a link to an
associated name-record, which may include a link to another such associated name-record, which may include a link to another such
record, and so on. If an implementation is to return more than one record, and so on. If an implementation is to return more than one
name-record in response to a query, information from the records name-record in response to a query, information from the records
thereby identified is returned. thereby identified is returned.
Note that this model includes arrangements for associated names, Note that this model includes arrangements for associated names,
including those that are linked by policy mechanisms and names bound including those that are linked by policy mechanisms and names bound
together for some other purposes. Note also that returning together for some other purposes. Note also that returning
skipping to change at page 13, line 22 skipping to change at page 13, line 48
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 Labs. Hollenbeck of Verisign Labs.
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, John Klensin, Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Behnam Esfahbod, John Klensin,
Edward Lewis, and John Levine. Edward Lewis, John Levine, Mark Nottingham, and Andrew Sullivan.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. 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)", draft-ietf- Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-json-response-06 (work in progress), October 2013. weirds-json-response-06 (work in progress), October 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-
skipping to change at page 13, line 46 skipping to change at page 14, line 24
rdap-sec-05 (work in progress), August 2013. rdap-sec-05 (work in progress), August 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-07 (work in progress), July 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.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[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.
[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.,
skipping to change at page 14, line 23 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 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, December Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290, December
2005. 2005.
[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
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 [RFC4918] Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007. 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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 8 skipping to change at page 15, line 35
[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.
[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.
[Unicode-UAX15]
The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2013,
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>.
10.2. 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.
[RFC1594] Marine, A., Reynolds, J., and G. Malkin, "FYI on Questions
and Answers - Answers to Commonly asked "New Internet
User" Questions", RFC 1594, March 1994.
[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.
skipping to change at page 16, line 4 skipping to change at page 16, line 41
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 6. 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. -06: Added search text and removed or edited old search text.
-07: Fixed query parameter typo by replacing "/?" with "?". Changed -07: Fixed query parameter typo by replacing "/?" with "?". Changed
"asplain" to "AS Plain". Added entity search by handle. "asplain" to "AS Plain". Added entity search by handle.
Corrected section references. Updated IDN search text. Corrected section references. Updated IDN search text.
-08: Revised URI formats and added IANA instructions to create a -08: Revised URI formats and added IANA instructions to create a
registry entry for the "rdap" well-known prefix. Revised search registry entry for the "rdap" well-known prefix. Revised search
processing text and added search privacy consideration. processing text and added search privacy consideration.
Synchronized examples with response draft. Synchronized examples with response draft.
-09: More search processing and URI prefix updates. Updated fully-
qualified domain name reference.
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. 23 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 83 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/