draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-13.txt   draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-14.txt 
Network Working Group A. Newton Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft ARIN Internet-Draft ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track B. Ellacott Intended status: Standards Track B. Ellacott
Expires: April 10, 2015 APNIC Expires: May 1, 2015 APNIC
N. Kong N. Kong
CNNIC CNNIC
October 7, 2014 October 28, 2014
HTTP usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) HTTP usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-13 draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-14
Abstract Abstract
This document is one of a collection that together describe the This document is one of a collection that together describes the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). It describes how RDAP is Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). It describes how RDAP is
transported using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). RDAP is a transported using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). RDAP is a
successor protocol to the very old WHOIS protocol. The purpose of successor protocol to the very old WHOIS protocol. The purpose of
this document is to clarify the use of standard HTTP mechanisms for this document is to clarify the use of standard HTTP mechanisms for
this application. this application.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 May 1, 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 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
4.3. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Types of HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Types of HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Positive Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Positive Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Negative Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Malformed Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. Malformed Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.5. Rate Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.5. Rate Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.6. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.6. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. URIs and IRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. URIs and IRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Language Identifiers in Queries and Responses . . . . . . 10 9.2. Language Identifiers in Queries and Responses . . . . . . 10
9.3. Language Identifiers in HTTP Headers . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. Language Identifiers in HTTP Headers . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Contributing Authors and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Contributing Authors and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Protocol Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Protocol Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Cache Busting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix B. Cache Busting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix C. Bootstrapping and Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix C. Bootstrapping and Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix D. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix D. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the usage of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol This document describes the usage of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) [RFC7230] for registration data directory services. The goal (HTTP) [RFC7230] for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP).
of this document is to tie together usage patterns of HTTP into a The goal of this document is to tie together usage patterns of HTTP
common profile applicable to the various types of directory services into a common profile applicable to the various types of directory
serving registration data using practices informed by the services serving registration data using practices informed by the
Representational State Transfer REST [REST] architectural style. By Representational State Transfer REST [REST] architectural style. By
giving the various directory services common behavior, a single giving the various directory services common behavior, a single
client is better able to retrieve data from directory services client is better able to retrieve data from directory services
adhering to this behavior. adhering to this behavior.
The registration data expected to be presented by this service is Registration data expected to be presented by this service is
Internet resource registration data - registration of domain names Internet resource registration data - registration of domain names
and Internet number resources. These data is typically provided by and Internet number resources. This data is typically provided by
WHOIS [RFC3912] services, but the WHOIS protocol is insufficient to WHOIS [RFC3912] services, but the WHOIS protocol is insufficient to
modern registration data service requirements. A replacement modern registration data service requirements. A replacement
protocol is expected to retain the simple transactional nature of protocol is expected to retain the simple transactional nature of
WHOIS, while providing a specification for queries and responses, WHOIS, while providing a specification for queries and responses,
redirection to authoritative sources, support for Internationalized redirection to authoritative sources, support for Internationalized
Domain Names (IDNs, [RFC5890]), and support for localized Domain Names (IDNs, [RFC5890]), and support for localized
registration data such as addresses and organisation or person names. registration data such as addresses and organisation or person names.
In designing these common usage patterns, this document introduces In designing these common usage patterns, this document introduces
considerations for a simple use of HTTP. Where complexity may considerations for a simple use of HTTP. Where complexity may
skipping to change at page 4, line 45 skipping to change at page 4, line 45
response. RDAP query and response formats are described in response. RDAP query and response formats are described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] and [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response], [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] and [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response],
while this document describes how RDAP clients and servers use HTTP while this document describes how RDAP clients and servers use HTTP
to exchange queries and responses. [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec] to exchange queries and responses. [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]
describes security considerations for RDAP. describes security considerations for RDAP.
3. Design Intents 3. Design Intents
There are a few design criteria this document attempts to meet. There are a few design criteria this document attempts to meet.
First, each query is meant to return only one path of execution to First, each query is meant to require only one path of execution to
obtain an answer. A response may contain an answer, no answer, or a obtain an answer. A response may contain an answer, no answer, or a
redirect, and clients are not expected to fork multiple paths of redirect, and clients are not expected to fork multiple paths of
execution to satisfy a query. execution to satisfy a query.
Second, the semantics of the request/response allow for future and/or Second, the semantics of the request/response allow for future and/or
non-standard response formats. In this document, only a JSON non-standard response formats. In this document, only a JSON
[RFC7159] response media type is noted, with the response contents to [RFC7159] response media type is noted, with the response contents to
be described separately (see [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]). This be described separately (see [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]). This
document only describes how RDAP is transported using HTTP with this document only describes how RDAP is transported using HTTP with this
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
4.1. HTTP Methods 4.1. HTTP Methods
Clients use the GET method to retrieve a response body and use the Clients use the GET method to retrieve a response body and use the
HEAD method to determine existence of data on the server. Clients HEAD method to determine existence of data on the server. Clients
SHOULD use either the HTTP GET or HEAD methods (see [RFC7231]). SHOULD use either the HTTP GET or HEAD methods (see [RFC7231]).
Servers are under no obligation to support other HTTP methods, Servers are under no obligation to support other HTTP methods,
therefore clients using other methods will likely not interoperate therefore clients using other methods will likely not interoperate
properly. properly.
Clients MUST support HTTPS as well as HTTP. Clients MUST support HTTPS as well as HTTP to support security
services.
4.2. Accept Header 4.2. Accept Header
To indicate to servers that an RDAP response is desired, clients To indicate to servers that an RDAP response is desired, clients
include an Accept: header field with an RDAP specific JSON media include an Accept: header field with an RDAP specific JSON media
type, the generic JSON media type, or both. Servers receiving an type, the generic JSON media type, or both. Servers receiving an
RDAP request return an entity with a Content-Type: header containing RDAP request return an entity with a Content-Type: header containing
the RDAP specific JSON media type. the RDAP specific JSON media type.
This specification does not define the responses a server returns to This specification does not define the responses a server returns to
skipping to change at page 6, line 22 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
account for all of these response codes, a more robust client account for all of these response codes, a more robust client
accounting for these codes will likely provide a better user accounting for these codes will likely provide a better user
experience. It is expected that usage of response codes and types experience. It is expected that usage of response codes and types
for this application not defined here will be described in subsequent for this application not defined here will be described in subsequent
documents. documents.
5.1. Positive Answers 5.1. Positive Answers
If a server has the information requested by the client and wishes to If a server has the information requested by the client and wishes to
respond to the client with the information according to its policies, respond to the client with the information according to its policies,
it returns that answer in the body of a 200 response. it returns that answer in the body of a 200 (OK) response (see
[RFC7231]).
5.2. Redirects 5.2. Redirects
If a server wishes to inform a client that the answer to a given If a server wishes to inform a client that the answer to a given
query can be found elsewhere, it returns either a 301 response code query can be found elsewhere, it returns either a 301 (Moved
to indicate a permanent move, or a 302, 303 or 307 response code to Permanently) response code to indicate a permanent move, or a 302
(Found), 303 (See Other) or 307 (Temporary Redirect) response code to
indicate a non-permanent redirection, and it includes an HTTP(s) URL indicate a non-permanent redirection, and it includes an HTTP(s) URL
in the Location: header field. The client is expected to issue a in the Location: header field (see [RFC7231]). The client is
subsequent request to satisfy the original query using the given URL expected to issue a subsequent request to satisfy the original query
without any processing of the URL. In other words, the server is to using the given URL without any processing of the URL. In other
hand back a complete URL and the client should not have to transform words, the server is to hand back a complete URL and the client
the URL to follow it. Servers are under no obligation to return a should not have to transform the URL to follow it. Servers are under
URL conformant to [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]. no obligation to return a URL conformant to
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query].
For this application, such an example of a permanent move might be a For this application, such an example of a permanent move might be a
Top Level Domain (TLD) operator informing a client the information Top Level Domain (TLD) operator informing a client the information
being sought can be found with another TLD operator (i.e. a query for being sought can be found with another TLD operator (i.e. a query for
the domain bar in foo.example is found at http://foo.example/domain/ the domain bar in foo.example is found at http://foo.example/domain/
bar). bar).
For example, if the client sends For example, if the client sends
http://serv1.example.com/weirds/domain/example.com http://serv1.example.com/weirds/domain/example.com
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 6
For example, if the client sends For example, if the client sends
http://serv1.example.com/weirds/domain/example.com http://serv1.example.com/weirds/domain/example.com
the server redirecting to the server redirecting to
https://serv2.example.net/weirds2/ https://serv2.example.net/weirds2/
would set the Location: field to the value would set the Location: field to the value
https://serv2.example.net/weirds2/domain/example.com https://serv2.example.net/weirds2/domain/example.com
5.3. Negative Answers 5.3. Negative Answers
If a server wishes to respond that it has an empty result set (that If a server wishes to respond that it has an empty result set (that
is, no data appropriately satisfying the query), it returns a 404 is, no data appropriately satisfying the query), it returns a 404
response code. Optionally, it MAY include additional information (Not Found) response code. Optionally, it MAY include additional
regarding the negative answer in the HTTP entity body. information regarding the negative answer in the HTTP entity body.
If a server wishes to inform the client that information about the If a server wishes to inform the client that information about the
query is available, but cannot include the information in the query is available, but cannot include the information in the
response to the client for policy reasons, the server MUST respond response to the client for policy reasons, the server MUST respond
with an appropriate response code out of HTTP's 4xx range. Clients with an appropriate response code out of HTTP's 4xx range. Clients
MAY retry the query based on the respective response code. MAY retry the query based on the respective response code.
5.4. Malformed Queries 5.4. Malformed Queries
If a server receives a query which it cannot interpret as an RDAP If a server receives a query which it cannot interpret as an RDAP
query, it returns a 400 response code. Optionally, it MAY include query, it returns a 400 (Bad Request) response code. Optionally, it
additional information regarding this negative answer in the HTTP MAY include additional information regarding this negative answer in
entity body. the HTTP entity body.
5.5. Rate Limits 5.5. Rate Limits
Some servers apply rate limits to deter address scraping and other Some servers apply rate limits to deter address scraping and other
abuses. When a server declines to answer a query due to rate limits, abuses. When a server declines to answer a query due to rate limits,
it returns a 429 response code as described in [RFC6585]. A client it returns a 429 (Too Many Requests) response code as described in
that receives a 429 response SHOULD decrease its query rate, and [RFC6585]. A client that receives a 429 response SHOULD decrease its
honor the Retry-After header field if one is present. Servers may query rate, and honor the Retry-After header field if one is present.
place stricter limits upon clients that do not honor the Retry-After Servers may place stricter limits upon clients that do not honor the
header. Retry-After header.
Note that this is not a defense against denial-of-service attacks, Note that this is not a defense against denial-of-service attacks,
since a malicious client could ignore the code and continue to send since a malicious client could ignore the code and continue to send
queries at a high rate. A server might use another response code if queries at a high rate. A server might use another response code if
it did not wish to reveal to a client that rate limiting is the it did not wish to reveal to a client that rate limiting is the
reason for the denial of a reply. reason for the denial of a reply.
5.6. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing 5.6. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing
When responding to queries, it is RECOMMENDED that servers use the When responding to queries, it is RECOMMENDED that servers use the
Access-Control-Allow-Origin header field, as specified by Access-Control-Allow-Origin header field, as specified by
[W3C.CR-cors-20130129]. As the use of RDAP is for public resources, [W3C.CR-cors-20130129]. A value of "*" is suitable when RDAP is used
a value of "*" is suitable for most cases. for public resources.
This header (often called the CORS header) helps in-browser web This header (often called the CORS header) helps in-browser web
applications by lifting the "same-origin" restriction. applications by lifting the "same-origin" restriction.
6. Extensibility 6. Extensibility
For extensibility purposes, this document defines an IANA registry For extensibility purposes, this document defines an IANA registry
for prefixes used in JSON [RFC7159] data serialization and URI path for prefixes used in JSON [RFC7159] data serialization and URI path
segments (see Section 8). segments (see Section 8).
skipping to change at page 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 8, line 39
purposes. First, client implementers using modern programming purposes. First, client implementers using modern programming
languages such as Ruby or Java can use libraries that automatically languages such as Ruby or Java can use libraries that automatically
promote JSON names to first order object attributes or members. promote JSON names to first order object attributes or members.
Second, a clean mapping between JSON and XML is easy to accomplish Second, a clean mapping between JSON and XML is easy to accomplish
using these rules. using these rules.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document does not pose strong security requirements to the RDAP This document does not pose strong security requirements to the RDAP
protocol. However, it does not restrict against the use of security protocol. However, it does not restrict against the use of security
mechanisms offered by the HTTP protocol. It does require the RDAP mechanisms offered by the HTTP protocol. It does require that RDAP
clients MUST support HTTPS. clients MUST support HTTPS.
This document made recommendations for server implementations against This document makes recommendations for server implementations
denial-of-service (Section 5.5) and interoperability with existing against denial-of-service (Section 5.5) and interoperability with
security mechanism in HTTP clients (Section 5.6). existing security mechanism in HTTP clients (Section 5.6).
Additional security considerations to the RDAP protocol are covered Additional security considerations to the RDAP protocol are covered
in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]. in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec].
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. RDAP Extensions Registry 8.1. RDAP Extensions Registry
This specification proposes an IANA registry for RDAP extensions. This section requests that the IANA create a new category in the
The purpose of this registry is to ensure uniqueness of extension protocol registries labeled "Registration Data Access Protocol
identifiers. The extension identifier is used as a prefix in JSON (RDAP)" (if it does not already exist), and within that category
names and as a prefix of path segments in RDAP URLs. establish a URL referenceable, stand-alone registry labeled "RDAP
Extensions". The purpose of this registry is to ensure uniqueness of
extension identifiers. The extension identifier is used as a prefix
in JSON names and as a prefix of path segments in RDAP URLs.
The production rule for these identifiers is specified in Section 6. The production rule for these identifiers is specified in Section 6.
In accordance with [RFC5226], the IANA policy for assigning new In accordance with [RFC5226], the IANA policy for assigning new
values shall be Specification Required: values and their meanings values shall be Specification Required: values and their meanings
must be documented in an RFC or in some other permanent and readily must be documented in an RFC or in some other permanent and readily
available reference, in sufficient detail that interoperability available reference, in sufficient detail that interoperability
between independent implementations is possible. between independent implementations is possible.
The following is a preliminary template for an RDAP extension The following is a preliminary template for an RDAP extension
skipping to change at page 11, line 18 skipping to change at page 11, line 18
this document. this document.
This document is the work product of the IETF's WEIRDS working group, This document is the work product of the IETF's WEIRDS working group,
of which Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy were chairs. of which Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy were chairs.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. 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-query] [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol Query Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-14 Protocol Query Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-15
(work in progress), September 2014. (work in progress), October 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.
[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.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
skipping to change at page 13, line 43 skipping to change at page 13, line 41
{ ... } { ... }
<TCP disconnect> <TCP disconnect>
Appendix B. Cache Busting Appendix B. Cache Busting
Some HTTP [RFC7230] cache infrastructure does not adhere to caching Some HTTP [RFC7230] cache infrastructure does not adhere to caching
standards adequately, and could cache responses longer than is standards adequately, and could cache responses longer than is
intended by the server. To overcome these issues, clients can use an intended by the server. To overcome these issues, clients can use an
adhoc and improbably used query parameter with a random value of adhoc and improbably used query parameter with a random value of
their choosing. As Section 4.3 instructs servers to ignore unknown their choosing. As Section 4.3 instructs servers to ignore unknown
parameters, this is unlikely to have any known side effects. parameters, this is compatible with the RDAP definition.
An example of using an unknown query parameter to bust caches: An example of using an unknown query parameter to bust caches:
http://example.com/ip/192.0.2.0?__fuhgetaboutit=xyz123 http://example.com/ip/192.0.2.0?__fuhgetaboutit=xyz123
Use of an unknown parameter to overcome misbehaving caches is not Use of an unknown parameter to overcome misbehaving caches is not
part of any specification and is offered here for informational part of any specification and is offered here for informational
purposes. purposes.
Appendix C. Bootstrapping and Redirection Appendix C. Bootstrapping and Redirection
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
about it. about it.
* A reference to draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap was added. * A reference to draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap was added.
* Included a section on redirectors. * Included a section on redirectors.
-13 -13
* Addressed AD feedback. * Addressed AD feedback.
-15
* Addressed 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
URI: http://www.arin.net URI: http://www.arin.net
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 63 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/