Internet DRAFT - draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag
draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag
Registration Protocols Extensions S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft Verisign Labs
Updates: 7484 (if approved) A. Newton
Intended status: Best Current Practice ARIN
Expires: April 27, 2018 October 24, 2017
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
draft-hollenbeck-regext-rdap-object-tag-05
Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that
can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing
domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries. The
method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for
processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries. This
limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query
types are typically unstructured. This document describes an
operational practice that can be used to add structure to RDAP
identifiers that makes it possible to identify the authoritative
server for additional RDAP queries.
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 https://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 April 27, 2018.
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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . . . 7
3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . 9
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method
([RFC7484]) that can be used to identify the authoritative server for
processing domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number
(ASN) queries. This method works because each of these data elements
is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the
element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP
service provider. For example, domain names include labels (such as
"com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service
providers.
As noted in Section 9 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484], the method does not
describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing
entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using
certain search patterns. This limitation exists because the
identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a
way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific
service provider. This document describes an operational practice
that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers that makes it
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP
queries.
2. Object Naming Practice
Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it
possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP
query using the method described in RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. A service
provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode TILDE character
"~" (U+007E, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC 3986
[RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the service
provider. For example, a tag for a service provider identified by
the string value "ARIN" is represented as "~ARIN".
Service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP query
object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative server
for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from
Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], an RDAP entity handle can be
constructed that allows an RDAP client to bootstrap an entity query.
The following identifier is used to find information for the entity
associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN":
XXXX~ARIN
Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this
identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier
elements. Handles can themselves contain TILDE characters; the
service provider identifier is found following the last TILDE
character in the tagged identifier. The service provider identifier
is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry. The base
URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP query
path segment. For example, if the base RDAP URL
"https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service provider
"YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged entity
identifier "XXXX~YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service
provider ("YYYY") identifiers. The service provider identifier
"YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP
URL "https://example.com/rdap/". The base RDAP URL is concatenated
to the entity handle to create a complete RDAP query path segment of
"https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX~YYYY".
Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured
potential query identifiers in RDAP responses. Consider these elided
examples from Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle
identifiers have been tagged with a service provider tag:
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
"handle" : "XXXX~RIR",
"ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"nameservers" :
[
...
],
"secureDNS":
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX~RIR",
"vcardArray":
[
...
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"network" :
{
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXXX~RIR",
"startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
"ipVersion" : "v4",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country" : "AU",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY~RIR",
"status" : [ "active" ]
}
}
Figure 1
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX~DNR",
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example",
"variants" :
[
...
],
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
"publicIds":
[
...
],
"nameservers" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX~DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
"events" :
[
...
]
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX~DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
...
],
"entities" :
[
{
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX~ABC",
"vcardArray":
[
...
],
"status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
]
}
Figure 2
As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can
contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references
SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider
tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to
identify a service provider.
There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the TILDE
character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator purposes in
an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly assuming
that a TILDE character represents a separator and the text that
follows TILDE is a service provider identifier. A client that
queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid service
provider will likely receive an unexpected invalid result. As a
consequence, the TILDE character MUST NOT be used in an entity handle
for any purpose other than to separate an object identifier from a
service provider tag.
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers
The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is
represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484
[RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains alphanumeric
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base
RDAP URLs, as shown in this example.
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values",
"services": [
[
["YYYY"],
[
"https://example.com/rdap/"
]
],
[
["ZZ54"],
[
"http://rdap.example.org/"
]
],
[
["1754"],
[
"https://example.net/rdap/",
"http://example.net/rdap/"
]
]
]
}
Figure 3
Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the syntax
specified in the IANA registry of Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP) Repository Identifiers [1].
3.1. Registration Procedure
The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. Provider
identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request.
Registration requests include the requested service provider
identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier)
and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the service
provider identifier.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registry
listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of
this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax
specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484].
4.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider
being registered.
o One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration.
5. Implementation Status
NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
to publication as an RFC.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
5.1. Verisign Labs
Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs
Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/
Description: This implementation includes support for domain
registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
code top-level domains. Client authentication is required to
receive entity information in query responses.
Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research
implementation.
Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com
5.2. OpenRDAP
Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP
Location: https://www.openrdap.org
Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity
handles with a service provider tag. A test Bootstrap Services
Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one.
Level of Maturity: Alpha
Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the TILDE separator
character only.
Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org
6. Security Considerations
This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from
an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find
authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to
non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security
properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to
access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246],
which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP
are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481].
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
Harrison, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors would like to
recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) operators (AFRINIC,
APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been implementing and using
the practice of tagging handle identifiers for several years. Their
experience provided significant inspiration for the development of
this document.
8. References
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
8.1. Normative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
8.3. URIs
[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-repository-ids/epp-
repository-ids.xhtml#epp-repository-ids-1
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging October 2017
Appendix A. Change Log
00: Initial version.
01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT.
Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service
provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom
Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network
example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by
Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements.
02: Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE.
Clarity updates and fixed an example handle. Added text to
describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in
entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters.
03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 5).
04: Keepalive refresh.
05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 5.
Authors' Addresses
Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
USA
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Andrew Lee Newton
American Registry for Internet Numbers
PO Box 232290
Centreville, VA 20120
US
Email: andy@arin.net
URI: http://www.arin.net
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires April 27, 2018 [Page 12]
