draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-15.txt   rfc7480.txt 
Network Working Group A. Newton Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Newton
Internet-Draft ARIN Request for Comments: 7480 ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track B. Ellacott Category: Standards Track B. Ellacott
Expires: May 23, 2015 APNIC ISSN: 2070-1721 APNIC
N. Kong N. Kong
CNNIC CNNIC
November 19, 2014 March 2015
HTTP usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-15
Abstract Abstract
This document is one of a collection that together describes 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2015. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Design Intents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Design Intents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. HTTP Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. HTTP Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Accept Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Accept Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Protocol Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Protocol Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Cache Busting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix B. Cache Busting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix C. Bootstrapping and Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix C. Bootstrapping and Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix D. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). (HTTP) [RFC7230] for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP).
The goal of this document is to tie together usage patterns of HTTP The goal of this document is to tie together usage patterns of HTTP
into a common profile applicable to the various types of directory into a common profile applicable to the various types of directory
services 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.
giving the various directory services common behavior, a single By 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.
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. This 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
registration data such as addresses and organisation or person names. data such as addresses and organization 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
reside, it is the goal of this document to place it upon the server reside, it is the goal of this document to place it upon the server
and to keep the client as simple as possible. A client and to keep the client as simple as possible. A client
implementation should be possible using common operating system implementation should be possible using common operating system
scripting tools (e.g. bash and wget). scripting tools (e.g., bash and wget).
This is the basic usage pattern for this protocol: This is the basic usage pattern for this protocol:
1. A client determines an appropriate server to query along with the 1. A client determines an appropriate server to query along with the
appropriate base Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to use in such appropriate base Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to use in such
queries. [I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap] describes one method to queries. [RFC7484] describes one method to determine the server
determine the server and the base URL. See Appendix C for more and the base URL. See Appendix C for more information.
information.
2. A client issues an HTTP (or HTTPS) query using GET [RFC7231]. As 2. A client issues an HTTP (or HTTPS) query using GET [RFC7231]. As
an example, a query URL for the network registration 192.0.2.0 an example, a query URL for the network registration 192.0.2.0
might be might be
http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0 http://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] details the various queries used in [RFC7482] details the various queries used in RDAP.
RDAP.
3. If the receiving server has the information for the query, it 3. If the receiving server has the information for the query, it
examines the Accept header field of the query and returns a 200 examines the Accept header field of the query and returns a 200
response with a response entity appropriate for the requested response with a response entity appropriate for the requested
format. [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] details a response in format. [RFC7483] details a response in JavaScript Object
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). Notation (JSON).
4. If the receiving server does not have the information for the 4. If the receiving server does not have the information for the
query but does have knowledge of where the information can be query but does have knowledge of where the information can be
found, it will return a redirection response (3xx) with the found, it will return a redirection response (3xx) with the
Location: header field containing an HTTP(S) URL pointing to the Location header field containing an HTTP(S) URL pointing to the
information or another server known to have knowledge of the information or another server known to have knowledge of the
location of the information. The client is expected to re-query location of the information. The client is expected to requery
using that HTTP URL. using that HTTP URL.
5. If the receiving server does not have the information being 5. If the receiving server does not have the information being
requested and does not have knowledge of where the information requested and does not have knowledge of where the information
can be found, it returns a 404 response. can be found, it returns a 404 response.
6. If the receiving server will not answer a request for policy 6. If the receiving server will not answer a request for policy
reasons, it will return an error response (4xx) indicating the reasons, it will return an error response (4xx) indicating the
reason for giving no answer. reason for giving no answer.
It is not the intent of this document to redefine the meaning and It is not the intent of this document to redefine the meaning and
semantics of HTTP. The purpose of this document is to clarify the semantics of HTTP. The purpose of this document is to clarify the
use of standard HTTP mechanisms for this application. use of standard HTTP mechanisms for this application.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
As is noted in Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) As is noted in "Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure [SAC-051], the term "WHOIS" Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure" [SAC-051], the term
is overloaded, often referring to a protocol, a service and data. In "WHOIS" is overloaded, often referring to a protocol, a service, and
accordance with [SAC-051], this document describes the base behavior data. In accordance with [SAC-051], this document describes the base
for a Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). [SAC-051] describes behavior for an RDAP. [SAC-051] describes a protocol profile of RDAP
a protocol profile of RDAP for Domain Name Registries (DNRs), the for Domain Name Registries (DNRs), the Domain Name Registration Data
Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (DNRD-AP). Access Protocol (DNRD-AP).
In this document, an RDAP client is an HTTP user agent performing an In this document, an RDAP client is an HTTP user agent performing an
RDAP query, and an RDAP server is an HTTP server providing an RDAP RDAP query, and an RDAP server is an HTTP server providing an RDAP
response. RDAP query and response formats are described in response. RDAP query and response formats are described in [RFC7482]
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] and [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response], and [RFC7483], while this document describes how RDAP clients and
while this document describes how RDAP clients and servers use HTTP servers use HTTP to exchange queries and responses. [RFC7481]
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 require 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 make a query. execution to make 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 [RFC7483]). This document only
document only describes how RDAP is transported using HTTP with this describes how RDAP is transported using HTTP with this format.
format.
Third, this protocol is intended to be able to make use of the range Third, this protocol is intended to be able to make use of the range
of mechanisms available for use with HTTP. HTTP offers a number of of mechanisms available for use with HTTP. HTTP offers a number of
mechanisms not described further in this document. Operators are mechanisms not described further in this document. Operators are
able to make use of these mechanisms according to their local policy, able to make use of these mechanisms according to their local policy,
including cache control, authorization, compression, and redirection. including cache control, authorization, compression, and redirection.
HTTP also benefits from widespread investment in scalability, HTTP also benefits from widespread investment in scalability,
reliability, and performance, and widespread programmer understanding reliability, and performance, as well as widespread programmer
of client behaviours for web services styled after REST [REST], understanding of client behaviors for web services styled after REST
reducing the cost to deploy Registration Data Directory Services and [REST], reducing the cost to deploy Registration Data Directory
clients. This protocol is forward compatible with HTTP 2.0. Services and clients. This protocol is forward compatible with HTTP
2.0.
4. Queries 4. Queries
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 and servers MUST support HTTPS to support security services. Clients and servers MUST support HTTPS 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,
type, the generic JSON media type, or both. Servers receiving an the generic JSON media type, or both. Servers receiving an RDAP
RDAP request return an entity with a Content-Type: header containing request return an entity with a Content-Type header containing the
the RDAP specific JSON media type. 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
a request with any other media types in the Accept: header field, or a request with any other media types in the Accept header field, or
with no Accept: header field. One possibility would be to return a with no Accept header field. One possibility would be to return a
response in a media type suitable for rendering in a web browser. response in a media type suitable for rendering in a web browser.
4.3. Query Parameters 4.3. Query Parameters
Servers MUST ignore unknown query parameters. Use of unknown query Servers MUST ignore unknown query parameters. Use of unknown query
parameters for cache-busting is described in Appendix B. parameters for cache busting is described in Appendix B.
5. Types of HTTP Response 5. Types of HTTP Response
This section describes the various types of responses a server may This section describes the various types of responses a server may
send to a client. While no standard HTTP response code is forbidden send to a client. While no standard HTTP response code is forbidden
in usage, this section defines the minimal set of response codes in in usage, this section defines the minimal set of response codes in
common use by servers that a client will need to understand. While common use by servers that a client will need to understand. While
some clients may be constructed with simple tooling that does not some clients may be constructed with simple tooling that does not
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
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 39
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 (OK) response (see it returns that answer in the body of a 200 (OK) response (see
[RFC7231]). [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 (Moved query can be found elsewhere, it returns either a 301 (Moved
Permanently) response code to indicate a permanent move, or a 302 Permanently) response code to indicate a permanent move or a 302
(Found), 303 (See Other) or 307 (Temporary Redirect) response code to (Found), 303 (See Other), or 307 (Temporary Redirect) response code
indicate a non-permanent redirection, and it includes an HTTP(s) URL to indicate a non-permanent redirection, and it includes an HTTP(S)
in the Location: header field (see [RFC7231]). The client is URL in the Location header field (see [RFC7231]). The client is
expected to issue a subsequent request to satisfy the original query expected to issue a subsequent request to satisfy the original query
using the given URL without any processing of the URL. In other using the given URL without any processing of the URL. In other
words, the server is to hand back a complete URL and the client words, the server is to hand back a complete URL, and the client
should not have to transform the URL to follow it. Servers are under should not have to transform the URL to follow it. Servers are under
no obligation to return a URL conformant to no obligation to return a URL conformant to [RFC7482].
[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
the domain bar in foo.example is found at http://foo.example/domain/ for the domain bar in foo.example is found at
bar). http://foo.example/domain/bar).
For example, if the client uses For example, if the client uses
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
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 36
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. A client with an appropriate response code out of HTTP's 4xx range. A client
MAY retry the query if that is appropriate for the respective MAY retry the query if that is appropriate for the respective
response code. 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 that it cannot interpret as an RDAP
query, it returns a 400 (Bad Request) response code. Optionally, it query, it returns a 400 (Bad Request) response code. Optionally, it
MAY include additional information regarding this negative answer in MAY include additional information regarding this negative answer in
the HTTP 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 (Too Many Requests) response code as described in it returns a 429 (Too Many Requests) response code as described in
[RFC6585]. A client that receives a 429 response SHOULD decrease its [RFC6585]. A client that receives a 429 response SHOULD decrease its
query rate, and honor the Retry-After header field if one is present. query rate and honor the Retry-After header field if one is present.
Servers may place stricter limits upon clients that do not honor the Servers may place stricter limits upon clients that do not honor the
Retry-After header. Optionally, the server MAY include additional Retry-After header. Optionally, the server MAY include additional
information regarding the rate limiting in the HTTP entity body. information regarding the rate limiting in the HTTP entity body.
Note that this is not a defense against denial-of-service attacks, Note that this is not a defense against denial-of-service (DoS)
since a malicious client could ignore the code and continue to send attacks, since a malicious client could ignore the code and continue
queries at a high rate. A server might use another response code if to send queries at a high rate. A server might use another response
it did not wish to reveal to a client that rate limiting is the code if it did not wish to reveal to a client that rate limiting is
reason for the denial of a reply. the reason for the denial of a reply.
5.6. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing 5.6. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS)
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]. A value of "*" is suitable when RDAP is used [W3C.REC-cors-20140116]. A value of "*" is suitable when RDAP is
for public resources. used 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 (i.e. a browser applications by lifting the "same-origin" restriction (i.e., a
may load RDAP client code from one web server but query others for browser may load RDAP client code from one web server but query
RDAP data). others for RDAP data).
By default, browsers do not send cookies when cross origin requests By default, browsers do not send cookies when cross origin requests
are allowed. Setting the Access-Control-Allow-Credentials header to are allowed. Setting the Access-Control-Allow-Credentials header
"true" will send cookies. Use of the Access-Control-Allow- field to "true" will send cookies. Use of the
Credentials is NOT RECOMMENDED. Access-Control-Allow-Credentials header field is NOT RECOMMENDED.
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).
Prefixes and identifiers SHOULD only consist of the alphabetic ASCII Prefixes and identifiers SHOULD only consist of the alphabetic US-
characters A through Z in both uppercase and lowercase, the numerical ASCII characters A through Z in both uppercase and lowercase, the
digits 0 through 9, underscore characters, and SHOULD NOT begin with numerical digits 0 through 9, and the underscore character, and they
an underscore character, numerical digit or the characters "xml". SHOULD NOT begin with an underscore character, numerical digit, or
The following describes the production of JSON names in ABNF the characters "xml". The following describes the production of JSON
[RFC5234]. names in ABNF [RFC5234].
ABNF for JSON names
name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" ) name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" )
Figure 1 Figure 1: ABNF for JSON Names
This restriction is a union of the Ruby programming language This restriction is a union of the Ruby programming language
identifier syntax and the XML element name syntax and has two identifier syntax and the XML element name syntax and has two
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 that RDAP mechanisms offered by the HTTP protocol. It does require that RDAP
clients and server MUST support HTTPS. clients and servers MUST support HTTPS.
This document makes recommendations for server implementations This document makes recommendations for server implementations
against denial-of-service (Section 5.5) and interoperability with against DoS (Section 5.5) and interoperability with existing security
existing security mechanism in HTTP clients (Section 5.6). mechanisms 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 [RFC7481].
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. RDAP Extensions Registry 8.1. RDAP Extensions Registry
This section requests that the IANA create a new category in the IANA has created a new category in the protocol registries labeled
protocol registries labeled "Registration Data Access Protocol "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", and within that category,
(RDAP)" (if it does not already exist), and within that category has established a URL-referenceable, stand-alone registry labeled
establish a URL referenceable, stand-alone registry labeled "RDAP "RDAP Extensions". The purpose of this registry is to ensure
Extensions". The purpose of this registry is to ensure uniqueness of uniqueness of extension identifiers. The extension identifier is
extension identifiers. The extension identifier is used as a prefix used as a prefix in JSON names and as a prefix of path segments in
in JSON names and as a prefix of path segments in RDAP URLs. 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 template for an RDAP extension registration:
registration:
Extension identifier: the identifier of the extension Extension identifier: the identifier of the extension
Registry operator: the name of the registry operator Registry operator: the name of the registry operator
Published specification: RFC number, bibliographical reference or Published specification: RFC number, bibliographical reference, or
URL to a permanent and readily available specification URL to a permanent and readily available specification
Person & email address to contact for further information: The Person & email address to contact for further information: The
names and email addresses of individuals for contact regarding names and email addresses of individuals to contact regarding this
this registry entry registry entry
Intended usage: brief reasons for this registry entry (as defined Intended usage: brief reasons for this registry entry (as defined
by [RFC5226]. by [RFC5226]).
The following is an example of a registration in the RDAP extension The following is an example of a registration in the RDAP extension
registry: registry:
Extension identifier: lunarNic Extension identifier: lunarNic
Registry operator: The Registry of the Moon, LLC Registry operator: The Registry of the Moon, LLC
Published specification: http://www.example/moon_apis/rdap Published specification: http://www.example/moon_apis/rdap
Person & email address to contact for further information: Person & email address to contact for further information:
Professor Bernardo de la Paz <berny@moon.example> Professor Bernardo de la Paz <berny@moon.example>
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
9. Internationalization Considerations 9. Internationalization Considerations
9.1. URIs and IRIs 9.1. URIs and IRIs
Clients can use IRIs [RFC3987] for internal use as they see fit, but Clients can use Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
MUST transform them to URIs [RFC3986] for interaction with RDAP [RFC3987] for internal use as they see fit but MUST transform them to
servers. RDAP servers MUST use URIs in all responses, and again URIs [RFC3986] for interaction with RDAP servers. RDAP servers MUST
clients can transform these URIs to IRIs for internal use as they see use URIs in all responses, and again clients can transform these URIs
fit. to IRIs for internal use as they see fit.
9.2. Language Identifiers in Queries and Responses 9.2. Language Identifiers in Queries and Responses
Under most scenarios, clients requesting data will not signal that Under most scenarios, clients requesting data will not signal that
the data be returned in a particular language or script. On the the data be returned in a particular language or script. On the
other hand, when servers return data and have knowledge that the data other hand, when servers return data and have knowledge that the data
is in a language or script, the data SHOULD be annotated with is in a language or script, the data SHOULD be annotated with
language identifiers whenever they are available, thus allowing language identifiers whenever they are available, thus allowing
clients to process and display the data accordingly. clients to process and display the data accordingly.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] provides such a mechanism. [RFC7483] provides such a mechanism.
9.3. Language Identifiers in HTTP Headers 9.3. Language Identifiers in HTTP Headers
Given the description of the use of language identifiers in Given the description of the use of language identifiers in
Section 9.2, unless otherwise specified, servers SHOULD ignore the Section 9.2, unless otherwise specified, servers SHOULD ignore the
HTTP [RFC7231] Accept-Language header field when formulating HTTP HTTP [RFC7231] Accept-Language header field when formulating HTTP
entity responses, so that clients do not conflate the Accept-Language entity responses, so that clients do not conflate the Accept-Language
header with the 'lang' values in the entity body. header with the 'lang' values in the entity body.
However, servers MAY return language identifiers in the Content- However, servers MAY return language identifiers in the Content-
Language header field so as to inform clients of the intended Language header field so as to inform clients of the intended
language of HTTP layer messages. language of HTTP layer messages.
10. Contributing Authors and Acknowledgements 10. References
John Levine provided text to tighten up the Accept header field usage
and the text for the section on 429 responses.
Marc Blanchet provided some clarifying text regarding the use of URLs
with redirects, as well as very useful feedback during WGLC.
Normative language reviews were provided by Murray S. Kucherawy,
Andrew Sullivan, Tom Harrison, Ed Lewis, and Alexander Mayrhofer.
Jean-Phillipe Dionne provided text for the Security Considerations
section.
The concept of the redirector server informatively discussed in
Appendix C was documented by Carlos M. Martinez and Gerardo Rada of
LACNIC and Linlin Zhou of CNNIC and subsequently incorporated into
this document.
This document is the work product of the IETF's WEIRDS working group,
of which Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy were chairs.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]
Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-10 (work in
progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-json-response-11 (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol Query Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-16
(work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec] 10.1. Normative References
Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol", draft-ietf-weirds-
rdap-sec-10 (work in progress), October 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005. 3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource [RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005. Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6585] Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status [RFC6585] Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status
Codes", RFC 6585, April 2012. Codes", RFC 6585, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6585>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC
2014. 7230, June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014. Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[W3C.CR-cors-20130129] [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Kesteren, A., "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing", World Wide Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
Web Consortium Candidate Recommendation CR-cors-20130129, February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
January 2013,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-cors-20130129>.
11.2. Informative References [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
[RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>.
[W3C.REC-cors-20140116]
Kesteren, A., "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing", W3C
Recommendation, REC-cors-20140116, January 2014,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-cors-20140116/>.
10.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the [REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the
Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet
Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002. Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004. September 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014. Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[SAC-051] Piscitello, D., Ed., "SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS [SAC-051] Piscitello, D., Ed., "SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS
Terminology and Structure", September 2011. Terminology and Structure", A report from the ICANN
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
September 2011.
[lacnic-joint-whois] [lacnic-joint-whois]
LACNIC, "LACNIC Joint WHOIS Implementation", 2005, LACNIC, "Joint Whois", December 2005,
<ftp://anonymous@ftp.registro.br/pub/gter/gter20/02- <ftp://anonymous@ftp.registro.br/pub/gter/
jwhois-lacnic.pdf>. gter20/02-jwhois-lacnic.pdf>.
Appendix A. Protocol Example Appendix A. Protocol Example
To demonstrate typical behaviour of an RDAP client and server, the To demonstrate typical behavior of an RDAP client and server, the
following is an example of an exchange, including a redirect. The following is an example of an exchange, including a redirect. The
data in the response has been elided for brevity, as the data format data in the response has been elided for brevity, as the data format
is not described in this document. The media type used here is is not described in this document. The media type used here is
described in [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. described in [RFC7483].
An example of an RDAP client and server exchange: An example of an RDAP client and server exchange:
Client: Client:
<TCP connect to rdap.example.com port 80> <TCP connect to rdap.example.com port 80>
GET /rdap/ip/203.0.113.0/24 HTTP/1.1 GET /rdap/ip/203.0.113.0/24 HTTP/1.1
Host: rdap.example.com Host: rdap.example.com
Accept: application/rdap+json Accept: application/rdap+json
rdap.example.com: rdap.example.com:
skipping to change at page 14, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 44
rdap-ip.example.com: rdap-ip.example.com:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/rdap+json Content-Type: application/rdap+json
Content-Length: 9001 Content-Length: 9001
{ ... } { ... }
<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 infrastructures do 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 ad hoc 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 compatible with the RDAP definition. 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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 20 skipping to change at page 14, line 24
The traditional deployment model of WHOIS [RFC3912] does not provide The traditional deployment model of WHOIS [RFC3912] does not provide
a mechanism for determining the authoritative source for information. a mechanism for determining the authoritative source for information.
Some approaches have been implemented in the past, most notably the Some approaches have been implemented in the past, most notably the
Joint WHOIS [lacnic-joint-whois] initiative. However, among other Joint WHOIS [lacnic-joint-whois] initiative. However, among other
shortcomings, Joint WHOIS is implemented using proxies and server- shortcomings, Joint WHOIS is implemented using proxies and server-
side referrals. side referrals.
These issues are solved in RDAP using HTTP redirects and These issues are solved in RDAP using HTTP redirects and
bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is discussed in bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is discussed in [RFC7484]. In
[I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]. In constrained environments, the constrained environments, the processes outlined in [RFC7484] may not
processes outlined in [I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap] may not be viable be viable, and there may be the need for servers acting as a
and there may be need for servers acting as a "redirector". "redirector".
Redirector servers issue HTTP redirects to clients using a Redirector servers issue HTTP redirects to clients using a
redirection table informed by [I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]. Figure 2 redirection table informed by [RFC7484]. Figure 2 diagrams a client
diagrams a client using a redirector for bootstrapping. using a redirector for bootstrapping.
REDIRECTOR ARIN REDIRECTOR ARIN
RDAP RDAP RDAP RDAP
. . . .
| | | |
Q: 23.1.1.1? -----------------> | | Q: 23.1.1.1? -----------------> | |
| | | |
<---------- HTTP 301 --------| | <---------- HTTP 301 --------| |
('Try ARIN RDAP') | | ('Try ARIN RDAP') | |
| | | |
| |
Q: 23.1.1.1? -------------------------------> | Q: 23.1.1.1? -------------------------------> |
| |
<---------- HTTP 200 --------------------- | <---------- HTTP 200 --------------------- |
(JSON response is returned) | (JSON response is returned) |
| |
| |
. .
Querying RDAP data for 23.1.1.1 Figure 2: Querying RDAP Data for 23.1.1.1
Figure 2
In some cases, particularly sub-delegations made between RIRs known In some cases, particularly sub-delegations made between Regional
as "ERX space" and transfers of networks, multiple HTTP redirects Internet Registries (RIRs) known as "ERX space" and transfers of
will be issued. Figure 3 shows such a scenario. networks, multiple HTTP redirects will be issued. Figure 3 shows
such a scenario.
REDIRECTOR LACNIC ARIN REDIRECTOR LACNIC ARIN
RDAP RDAP RDAP RDAP RDAP RDAP
. . . . . .
Q: 23.1.1.1? ----> | | | Q: 23.1.1.1? ----> | | |
| | | | | |
<-- HTTP 301 --- | | | <-- HTTP 301 --- | | |
('Try LACNIC') | | | ('Try LACNIC') | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
skipping to change at page 16, line 32 skipping to change at page 15, line 33
| | | |
| |
Q: 23.1.1.1? -------------------------------> | Q: 23.1.1.1? -------------------------------> |
| |
<---------- HTTP 200 --------------------- | <---------- HTTP 200 --------------------- |
(JSON response is returned) | (JSON response is returned) |
| |
| |
. .
Querying RDAP data for data that has been transfered Figure 3: Querying RDAP Data for Data That Has Been Transferred
Figure 3
Appendix D. Changelog
RFC Editor: Please remove this section.
Initial WG -00: Updated to working group document 2012-September-20
-01
* Updated for the sections moved to the JSON responses draft.
* Simplified media type, removed "level" parameter.
* Updated 2119 language and added boilerplate.
* In section 1, noted that redirects can go to redirect servers
as well.
* Added Section 9.2 and Section 9.3.
-02
* Added a section on 429 response codes.
* Changed Accept header language in section 4.1
* Removed reference to the now dead requirements draft.
* Added contributing authors and acknowledgements section.
* Added some clarifying text regarding complete URLs in the
redirect section.
* Changed media type to application/rdap+json
* Added media type registration
-03
* Removed forward reference to draft-ietf-weirds-json-response.
* Added reference and recommended usage of CORS
-04
* Revised introduction and abstract.
* Added negative responses other than 404.
* Added security considerations.
* Added and corrected references: CORS, RFC3912, RFC3987,
RFC5890.
* Expanded on first use several acronyms.
* Updated 2119 language.
-05
* Update the media type registration.
* Further explained the SHOULD in section 5.
* Split the references into normative and informative.
* Other minor fixes.
-06
* Rewritten the third paragraph in Section 3 to avoid
contradictions
* Simplified the wording in Seciton 5.1.
* Removed some RFC 2119 words in Section 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.
* Corrected RFC 6839 as an informative reference.
* Replaced MAYs with cans in Seciton 9.1.
* Replaced MAY with can in Appendix B.
* Added a note in in Appendix C for the RFC Editor to remove this
section.
-07
* Dropped reference to MUST with application/rdap+json
* Dropped IANA registration of application/rdap+json
-08
* Keep alive version.
-09
* Changed status lines in example to include http version number.
* Removed charset from media types in examples.
* Changed wording of 404 negative response to specifically say
"empty result set".
* Changed references to HTTP.
-10
* Corrected references to HTTP.
* Added a reference to draft-ietf-weirds-json-response (discuss
item from Barry Leiba)
* Added a reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query (discuss item
from Barry Leiba)
* Noted that redirect URLs do not have to conform to draft-ietf-
weirds-rdap-query (comment by Richard Barnes)
* Noted that CORS header is most likely to be "*" (comment by
Richard Barnes)
* Added reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec (comment by
Richard Barnes)
* Added a sentence to the abstract explaining the purpose of RDAP
(comment by Stephen Farrell)
* Added further references to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query and
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response (comment by Stephen Farrell)
* Added comment regarding the use of the CORS header (comment by
Stephen Farrell)
* Explanded SSAC (comment by Sean Turner)
* Added text about HEAD and GET.
-11
* Changed JSON reference to RFC 7159.
* Noted that clients MUST support HTTPS.
-12
* Added reference to REST.
* Numerous textual clarifications.
* Added an actual reference to RFC 5226 instead of just talking
about it.
* A reference to draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap was added.
* Included a section on redirectors. Acknowledgements
-13 John Levine provided text to tighten up the Accept header field usage
and the text for the section on 429 responses.
* Addressed AD feedback. Marc Blanchet provided some clarifying text regarding the use of URLs
with redirects, as well as very useful feedback during Working Group
Last Call (WGLC).
-14 Normative language reviews were provided by Murray S. Kucherawy,
Andrew Sullivan, Tom Harrison, Ed Lewis, and Alexander Mayrhofer.
* Addressed Last Call comments. Jean-Phillipe Dionne provided text for the Security Considerations
section.
-15 The concept of the redirector server informatively discussed in
Appendix C was documented by Carlos M. Martinez and Gerardo Rada of
LACNIC and Linlin Zhou of CNNIC and subsequently incorporated into
this document.
* Addressed IESG comments. This document is the work product of the IETF's WEIRDS working group,
of which Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy were chairs.
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 United States
Email: andy@arin.net EMail: andy@arin.net
URI: http://www.arin.net URI: http://www.arin.net
Byron J. Ellacott Byron J. Ellacott
Asia Pacific Network Information Center Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
6 Cordelia Street 6 Cordelia Street
South Brisbane QLD 4101 South Brisbane QLD 4101
Australia Australia
Email: bje@apnic.net EMail: bje@apnic.net
URI: http://www.apnic.net URI: http://www.apnic.net
Ning Kong Ning Kong
China Internet Network Information Center China Internet Network Information Center
4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun, Haidian District 4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun, Haidian District
Beijing 100190 Beijing 100190
China China
Phone: +86 10 5881 3147 Phone: +86 10 5881 3147
Email: nkong@cnnic.cn EMail: nkong@cnnic.cn
 End of changes. 94 change blocks. 
391 lines changed or deleted 214 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/