draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-16.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: April 10, 2015 Verisign Labs Expires: April 30, 2015 Verisign Labs
October 7, 2014 October 27, 2014
Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-16
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. These Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns. These
uniform patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data uniform patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP). Access Protocol (RDAP).
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 April 10, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 6 3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 6
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 7 3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 8
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Query Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Query Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Partial String Searching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1. Partial String Searching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Associated Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Associated Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Character Encoding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1. Character Encoding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
described here are to enable queries of: described here 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.
Server implementations are free to support only a subset of these Server implementations are free to support only a subset of these
features depending on local requirements. If a server receives a features depending on local requirements. Servers MUST return an
query that it cannot process because it is not implemented it SHOULD HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC7231] response to inform clients of
return an HTTP 501 [RFC7231] error. It is also envisioned that each unsupported queries. It is also envisioned that each registry will
registry will continue to maintain WHOIS and/or other RESTful web continue to maintain WHOIS and/or other RESTful web services specific
services specific to their needs and those of their constituencies, to their needs and those of their constituencies, and the information
and the information retrieved through the patterns described here may retrieved through the patterns described here may reference such
reference such services. services.
Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for
additional query types. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is additional query types. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is
described in Section 5 to accommodate custom extensions that will not described in Section 5 to accommodate custom extensions that will not
interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns
defined in future IETF standards. defined in future IETF standards.
WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore URL WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore URL
[RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to [RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to
the HTTP [RFC7231] GET and HEAD methods. the HTTP [RFC7231] 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. The specification of issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET. The specification of
these entities is described in [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. these entities is described in [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 is needed for interoperability.
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. Supported have to make choices based on local criteria. Supported
authentication mechanisms are described in authentication mechanisms are described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]. [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec].
skipping to change at page 5, line 14 skipping to change at page 5, line 14
constructed by concatenating the base URL to the entity path segment constructed by concatenating the base URL to the entity path segment
specified in either Section 3.1.5 or Section 3.2.3. specified in either Section 3.1.5 or Section 3.2.3.
For help, a base URL is retrieved for any service (domain, address, For help, a base URL is retrieved for any service (domain, address,
etc.) for which additional information is required. The query URL is etc.) for which additional information is required. The query URL is
constructed by concatenating the base URL to the help path segment constructed by concatenating the base URL to the help path segment
specified in either Section 3.1.6. specified in either Section 3.1.6.
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification
A simple lookup to determine if an object exists (or not) without
returning RDAP-encoded results can be performed using the HTTP HEAD
method as described in Section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
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.
o 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR) o 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR)
information and associated data referenced using a fully-qualified information and associated data referenced using a fully-qualified
domain name. domain name.
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 49
IPv4 dotted-decimal or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e. XXX) or an IPv4 IPv4 dotted-decimal or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e. XXX) or an IPv4
or IPv6 CIDR [RFC4632] notation address block (i.e. XXX/YY). or 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 RFC 3986 [RFC3986], as IPv4address and
IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format
[RFC4291] can be used, compressed or not compressed. The restricted [RFC4291] can be used, compressed or not compressed. The rules to
rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are
not mandatory. However, the zone id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in RECOMMENDED. However, the zone_id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in
this context and therefore prohibited. this context and therefore the corresponding syntax extension in RFC
6874 [RFC6874] MUST NOT be used.
For example, the following URL would be used to find information for For example, the following URL would be used to find information for
the most specific network containing 192.0.2.0: the most specific network containing 192.0.2.0:
http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0 http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0
The following URL would be used to find information for the most The following URL would be used to find information for the most
specific network containing 192.0.2.0/24: specific network containing 192.0.2.0/24:
http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0/24 http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0/24
skipping to change at page 6, line 51 skipping to change at page 7, line 11
autonomous system number 65538: autonomous system number 65538:
http://example.com/rdap/autnum/65538 http://example.com/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 (relative to the root) domain name where XXXX is a fully-qualified (relative to the root) domain name
[RFC1594] in either the in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or (as specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123]) in either
a fully-qualified domain name in a zone administered by the server the in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified
operator (for DNRs). Internationalized domain names represented in domain name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs).
either A-label or U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain Internationalized domain names represented in either A-label or
names. See Section 6.1 for information on character encoding for the U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain names. See
U-label format. Section 6.1 for information on character encoding for the U-label
format.
IDNs SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels; IDNs SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels;
that is, all internationalized labels in an IDN SHOULD be either that is, all internationalized labels in an IDN SHOULD be either
A-labels or U-labels. It is possible for an RDAP client to assemble A-labels or U-labels. It is possible for an RDAP client to assemble
a query string from multiple independent data sources. Such a client a query string from multiple independent data sources. Such a client
might not be able to perform conversions between A-labels and might not be able to perform conversions between A-labels and
U-labels. An RDAP server that receives a query string with a mixture U-labels. An RDAP server that receives a query string with a mixture
of A-labels and U-labels MAY convert all the U-labels to A-labels, of A-labels and U-labels MAY convert all the U-labels to A-labels,
perform IDNA processing, and proceed with exact-match lookup. In perform IDNA processing, and proceed with exact-match lookup. In
such cases, the response to be returned to the query source may not such cases, the response to be returned to the query source may not
skipping to change at page 7, line 49 skipping to change at page 8, line 11
The following URL would be used to find information for the The following URL would be used to find information for the
xn--fo-5ja.example IDN: xn--fo-5ja.example IDN:
http://example.com/rdap/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example http://example.com/rdap/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example
3.1.4. 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 host
specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123]. name as 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 processing format [RFC5890] are also valid name server names. IDN processing
for name server names uses the domain name processing instructions for name server names uses the domain name processing instructions
specified in Section 3.1.3. See Section 6.1 for information on specified in Section 3.1.3. See Section 6.1 for information on
character encoding for the U-label format. character encoding for the U-label format.
The following URL would be used to find information for the The following URL would be used to find information for the
ns1.example.com name server: ns1.example.com name server:
http://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.example.com http://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.example.com
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 11
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 URL would be used to successfully use the service. The following URL would be used to
return "help" information: return "help" information:
http://example.com/rdap/help http://example.com/rdap/help
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification
A simple search to determine if an object exists (or not) without Pattern matching semantics are described in Section 4.1. The
returning RDAP-encoded results can be performed using the HTTP HEAD resource type path segments for search are:
method as described in Section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
The resource type path segments for search are:
o 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using o 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using
a pattern to match a fully-qualified domain name. a pattern to match a fully-qualified domain name.
o 'nameservers': Used to identify a name server information search o 'nameservers': Used to identify a name server information search
using a pattern to match a host name. using a pattern to match a host name.
o 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a o 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a
pattern to match a string identifier. pattern to match a string identifier.
RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the
plural form of the object being searched for and an HTTP query plural form of the object being searched for and an HTTP query
string. The HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the string. The HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the
question mark character ('?', ASCII value 0x003F), the JSON object question mark character ('?', ASCII value 0x003F), the JSON object
value associated with the object being searched for, the equal sign value associated with the object being searched for, the equal sign
character ('=', ASCII value 0x003D), and the search pattern. Search character ('=', ASCII value 0x003D), and the search pattern. Search
pattern query processing is described more fully in Section 4. For pattern query processing is described more fully in Section 4. For
the domain and entity objects described in this document the plural the domain, nameserver, and entity objects described in this document
object forms are "domains" and "entities". the plural object forms are "domains", "nameservers", and "entities".
Detailed results can be retrieved using the HTTP GET method and the Detailed results can be retrieved using the HTTP GET method and the
path segments specified here. path segments specified here.
3.2.1. Domain Search 3.2.1. Domain Search
Syntax: domains?name=<domain search pattern> Syntax: domains?name=<domain search pattern>
Syntax: domains?nsLdhName=<domain search pattern> Syntax: domains?nsLdhName=<domain search pattern>
skipping to change at page 12, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 35
For example, 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". Note that these search patterns include implied "example.com". Note that these search patterns include implied
beginning and end of string regular expression markers, and the beginning and end of string regular expression markers, and the
"example*.com" search would be translated into a POSIX regular "example*.com" search would be translated into a POSIX regular
expression as "^example.*\.com$". Additional pattern matching expression as "^example.*\.com$". Additional pattern matching
processing is beyond the scope of this specification. processing is beyond the 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 (Unprocessable Entity)
returning a 422 error, the server MAY also return an error response [RFC4918] response. When returning a 422 error, the server MAY also
body as specified in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if return an error response body as specified in Section 7 of
the requested media type is one that is specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if the requested media type is one
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. that is specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Partial matching is not feasible across combinations of Unicode Partial matching is not feasible across combinations of Unicode
characters because Unicode characters can be combined with another characters because Unicode characters can be combined with another
Unicode character or characters. Servers SHOULD NOT partially match Unicode character or characters. Servers SHOULD NOT partially match
combinations of Unicode characters where a Unicode character may be combinations of Unicode characters where a Unicode character may be
legally combined with another Unicode character or characters. It legally combined with another Unicode character or characters. It
should be noted, though, that it may not always be possible to detect should be noted, though, that it may not always be possible to detect
possible cases where a character could have been combined with possible cases where a character could have been combined with
another character, but was not, because of the way combining another character, but was not, because of the way combining
characters can be combined with many other characters. characters can be combined with many other characters.
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 19
combined with another character or characters are invalid. Partial combined with another character or characters are invalid. Partial
match searches with characters that may be combined with another match searches with characters that may be combined with another
character or characters are to be considered non-combined characters character or characters are to be considered non-combined characters
(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).
4.2. Associated Records 4.2. Associated Records
Conceptually, a name-record in a database may include a link to an Conceptually, any query-matching record in a server's database might
associated name-record, which may include a link to another such be a member of a set of related records, related in some fashion as
record, and so on. If an implementation is to return more than one defined by the server - for example, variants of an IDN. The entire
name-record in response to a query, information from the records set ought to be considered as candidates for inclusion when
thereby identified is returned. constructing the response. However, the construction of the final
response needs to be mindful of privacy and other data-releasing
policies when assembling the RDAP response set.
Note too that due to the nature of searching, there may be a list of
query-matching records. Each one of those is subject to being a
member of a set as described in the previous paragraph. What is
ultimately returned in a response will be the union of all the sets
that has been filtered by whatever policies are in place.
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
information that was not explicitly selected by an exact-match information that was not explicitly selected by an exact-match
lookup, including additional names that match a relatively fuzzy lookup, including additional names that match a relatively fuzzy
search as well as lists of names that are linked together, may cause search as well as lists of names that are linked together, may cause
privacy issues. privacy issues.
5. Extensibility 5. Extensibility
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 47
characters converts such strings into Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. It characters converts such strings into Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. It
then performs any local case mapping deemed necessary. Strings are then performs any local case mapping deemed necessary. Strings are
normalized using Normalization Form C (NFC, [Unicode-UAX15]); note normalized using Normalization Form C (NFC, [Unicode-UAX15]); note
that clients might not be able to do this reliably. UTF-8 encoded that clients might not be able to do this reliably. UTF-8 encoded
strings are then appropriately percent-encoded [RFC3986] in the query strings are then appropriately percent-encoded [RFC3986] in the query
URL. URL.
After parsing any percent-encoding, an RDAP server treats each query After parsing any percent-encoding, an RDAP server treats each query
string as Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. If a string is not valid UTF-8, 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 the server can immediately stop processing the query and return an
HTTP 400 error response code. HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response.
When processing queries, there is a difference in handling DNS names, When processing queries, there is a difference in handling DNS names,
including those including putative U-labels, and everything else. including those including putative U-labels, and everything else.
DNS names are treated according to the DNS matching rules as 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 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 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, 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 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 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 determination of whether a label is a U-label or an NR-LDH label is
skipping to change at page 16, line 15 skipping to change at page 16, line 27
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, John Levine, Mark Nottingham, and Andrew Sullivan. 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-bootstrap] [I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]
Blanchet, M. and G. Leclanche, "Finding the Authoritative Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
Registration Data (RDAP) Service", draft-ietf-weirds- (RDAP) Service", draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-09 (work in
bootstrap-07 (work in progress), September 2014. progress), October 2014.
[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-09 (work in progress), September weirds-json-response-10 (work in progress), October 2014.
2014.
[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-09 (work in progress), September 2014. rdap-sec-09 (work in progress), September 2014.
[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-12 (work in progress), September 2014. weirds-using-http-13 (work in progress), October 2014.
[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 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 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.
skipping to change at page 17, line 48 skipping to change at page 18, line 12
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014. (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
[Unicode-UAX15] [Unicode-UAX15]
The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15: The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2013, Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2013,
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>. <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., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation,
Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002. University of California, Irvine, 2000,
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
[RFC1594] Marine, A., Reynolds, J., and G. Malkin, "FYI on Questions fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
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.
[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.
[RFC6874] Carpenter, B., Cheshire, S., and R. Hinden, "Representing
IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
Resource Identifiers", RFC 6874, February 2013.
[RFC6927] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Variants in Second-Level Names [RFC6927] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Variants in Second-Level Names
Registered in Top-Level Domains", RFC 6927, May 2013. Registered in Top-Level Domains", RFC 6927, May 2013.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. 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 segment is provided. Added clearly note that only one path segment 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"
skipping to change at page 19, line 29 skipping to change at page 19, line 39
httpbis-http2, adding a note to make it clear that 2616 is an httpbis-http2, adding a note to make it clear that 2616 is an
acceptable reference if http2 isn't ready when needed. acceptable reference if http2 isn't ready when needed.
-12: IDN label processing clarification. Added domain search by -12: IDN label processing clarification. Added domain search by
name server name and name server IP address. Minor text editing name server name and name server IP address. Minor text editing
for consistency in the search sections. Replaced reference to for consistency in the search sections. Replaced reference to
draft-ietf-httpbis-http2 with a reference to RFC 7230 and removed draft-ietf-httpbis-http2 with a reference to RFC 7230 and removed
reference note. reference note.
-13: Added HTTP HEAD reference in Section 3.2. -13: Added HTTP HEAD reference in Section 3.2.
-14: Address WG last call comments. -14: Address WG last call comments.
-15: Address AD review comments. -15: Address AD review comments.
-16: Address IETF last call comments.
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. 26 change blocks. 
64 lines changed or deleted 74 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/