Internet DRAFT - draft-ellacott-historical-rdap
draft-ellacott-historical-rdap
Network Working Group B. Ellacott
Internet-Draft T. Harrison
Intended status: Standards Track APNIC Pty Ltd
Expires: December 30, 2017 June 28, 2017
History of records in the Registration Data Access Protocol
draft-ellacott-historical-rdap-00
Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) provides current
registration information. This document describes an RDAP query and
response extension that allows retrieving historical registration
records.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. JSON Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. The History Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. The Record Data Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RDAP Historical Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IP Network History Path Segment Specification . . . . . . 4
3.2. Autonomous System History Path Segment Specification . . 4
3.3. Domain History Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Nameserver History Path Segment Specification . . . . . . 5
3.5. Entity History Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 5
4. Query Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. An example History response . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) offers simple search and
responses as defined in [RFC7482] and [RFC7483] respectively. Both
the search and response documents implicitly describe current
registration information. This document provides an extension to
RDAP allowing the discovery of historical registration information.
1.1. Terminology
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. JSON Responses
The JSON responses described in [RFC7483] are extended with one
additional object class, the History object class, described below.
2.1. The History Object Class
The history object class is a container in which individual
registration records are listed, together comprising a history of
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
registration. The registration records are represented in the form
given in [RFC7483], without change.
The history object class can contain the following members:
o objectClassName -- the string "history"
o records -- an array of record objects, defined in the next
subsection
In addition, any of the common data structures defined in section 4
of [RFC7483] may be included in accordance with the constraints of
that section, with the following additional considerations.
o Any "rdapConformance" structure in the topmost object of a
response including a History object MUST include the string
"history_0" to indicate to clients that the response conforms to
this specification.
o An events structure MAY be included, but none of the values
defined in section 10.2.3 of [RFC7483] are suitable for a History
object class. Future values in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry
may be suitable, however.
2.2. The Record Data Structure
The record data structure describes one historical registration
record. It is an object containing the date range during which this
record was current, and the record's content. The content of a
historical record is a JSON response element as defined in [RFC7483].
In this way, history is defined for all RDAP object classes, and may
be extended to apply to non-standard or new RDAP object classes
without requiring a revision to the history specification.
The date range of the historical registration record consists of an
element indicating the first moment at which the contained record was
current, in the "applicableFrom" element, and an element indicating
the first moment at which the contained record was no longer current,
in the "applicableUntil" element. The date range is half-open,
including the "applicableFrom" date but excluding the
"applicableUntil" date. If the "applicableUntil" date is not
included in the response, this indicates that the associated content
was current at the time the response was generated.
An example of the record data structure:
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
{
"applicableFrom": "2008-09-04T06:51:49Z",
"applicableUntil": "2008-09-04T07:27:55Z",
"content": {
"objectClassName": "ip network",
...
}
}
3. RDAP Historical Path Segment Specification
Path segments for querying registration data are defined in [RFC7482]
for five resource types (ip, autnum, domain, nameserver, and entity).
In addition to these segments, this document defines one additional
path segment, 'history', for querying the historical data of any of
the five resource types, where supported by the server.
The history access specified in this document does not support
searches.
3.1. IP Network History Path Segment Specification
Syntax: "history/ip/<IP address>" or "history/ip/<CIDR prefix>/<CIDR
length>"
Queries for the history of IP networks follow the same form as for
the current registration of IP networks. However, while the current
registration query will select the "most-specific" or smallest IP
network that completely encompasses the query network, an historical
query selects all networks intersecting the query range.
A server MAY choose to limit the number of networks selected by a
query, by limiting the size of sub-networks, or the total number, or
some other means.
3.2. Autonomous System History Path Segment Specification
Syntax: "history/autnum/<autonomous system number>"
Queries for the history of an autonomous system number follow the
same form as for the current registration of autonomous system
numbers.
3.3. Domain History Path Segment Specification
Syntax: "history/domain/<domain name>"
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
Queries for the history of a domain registration. As with [RFC7482]
the domain is fully qualified, and SHOULD NOT be represented as a
mixture of A-labels and U-labels.
3.4. Nameserver History Path Segment Specification
Syntax: "history/nameserver/<nameserver name>"
Queries for the history of a nameserver. As with [RFC7482] the name
is a fully qualified host name represented in either A-label or
U-label format.
3.5. Entity History Path Segment Specification
Syntax: "history/entity/<handle>"
Queries for the history of an entity. The syntax of the handle is
specific to the registration provider.
4. Query Processing
The processing of queries proceeds as in [RFC7482] and [RFC7480].
Associated records, as documented in section 4.2 of [RFC7482],
contribute to the history of a registration record, and so any change
to the record or any of its associated records SHOULD be included in
the response to a history query.
A server MAY choose to limit the responses given to a history query.
For example, the date range of returned records may be restricted, or
the number of distinct records may be limited. A server MAY choose
to abridge history, such as eliding a short-lived record state. If a
server limites responses in this way, it SHOULD indicate to the user
that it has done so, either through the "help" path segment
documented in [RFC7482], or in a "notice" element as documented in
section 4.3 of [RFC7483] using an appropriate notice type such as
"result set truncated due to unexplainable reasons".
5. Internationalization Considerations
Character encoding considerations are described in section 6.1 of
[RFC7482].
6. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to add this document to the IANA RDAP
Extensions Registry.
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
TO BE REMOVED: This registration should take place at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-
extensions.xhtml>
Extension identifier: history_0
Registry operator: Asia Pacific Network Information Center
Published specification: TBD
Person & email address to contact for further information: Byron
Ellacott <mailto:bje@apnic.net>
Intended usage: This extension allows an RDAP operator to provide
historical registration data.
7. Security Considerations
Historical records may contain information which was inadvertently
entered into a record, and subsequently amended. It may contain
information which was removed by request of the information holder.
Additional privacy constraints may apply to data held for a long
period. Operators of a history-capable RDAP service SHOULD ensure
they have understood the privacy implications of this facility.
A query for historical records may consume more computing resources
than a query for current records. Implementations SHOULD take care
to offer operators the appropriate means to manage the operational
cost of a historical service, limiting query rates or response sizes
or both, where appropriate.
8. Acknowledgements
Substantial feedback on the initial draft was provided by Andrew
Newton of ARIN.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Appendix A. An example History response
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
{
"rdapConformance": [
"history_0",
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices": [
{
"title": "Example Only",
"description": [
"This is an example object only."
]
}
],
"objectClassName": "history",
"records": [
{
"applicableFrom": "2009-01-20T07:00:00Z",
"applicableUntil": "2017-01-20T07:00:00Z",
"content": {
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "POTUS",
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[ "version", {}, "text", "4.0" ],
[ "fn", {}, "text", "Barack Obama" ]
]
]
}
},
{
"applicableFrom": "2017-01-20T07:00:00Z",
"content": {
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "POTUS",
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[ "version", {}, "text", "4.0" ],
[ "fn", {}, "text", "Donald Trump" ]
]
]
}
}
]
}
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft History in RDAP June 2017
In this example, the "POTUS" entity has two historical records. The
applicability range of the first record is left-closed, indicating
that the "POTUS" entity had the first record's contents at noon EST
on the 20th of January, 2009, and right-open, indicating that the
"POTUS" entity no longer had the first record's contents at noon EST
on the 20th of Janauary, 2017. The absence of a gap between the
"applicableUntil" date of the first record and the "applicableFrom"
date of the second record indicates that the record was updated,
while a gap may indicate that the record was removed, then a similar
record with the same key was subsequently added. The second record
has no "applicableUntil" element, which indicates that, as of the
time that this RDAP History response was prepared, the second record
was still in effect.
This example also suggests that this response elides a number of
previous versions of this record. A registry's local policy will
determine what historical registration information is available, and
may vary based on the identity of the entity retrieving the
information.
Authors' Addresses
Byron Ellacott
APNIC Pty Ltd
Email: bje@apnic.net
Tom Harrison
APNIC Pty Ltd
Email: tomh@apnic.net
Ellacott & Harrison Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 9]
