Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions
Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) A. Newton
Internet-Draft ICANN
Updates: 7480, 9082, 9083 (if approved) J. Singh
Intended status: Standards Track ARIN
Expires: 30 August 2024 T. Harrison
APNIC
27 February 2024
RDAP Extensions
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-extensions-00
Abstract
This document describes and clarifies the usage of extensions in
RDAP.
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 30 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
Table of Contents
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The RDAP Extension Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Usage in Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Usage in JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Child JSON Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Bare Extension Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Camel Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Two Classes of Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Profile and Marker Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Extension Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Backwards-Compatible Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Backwards-Incompatible Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Extension Identifiers in a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Extension Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Existing Extension Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Background
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) defines a uniform means
to access data from Internet operations registries, specifically
Domain Name Registries (DNRs) and Internet Number Registries (INRs).
The queries for DNRs and INRs are defined in [RFC9082] and the
responses for DNRs and INRs are defined in [RFC9083].
RDAP contains a means to define extensions for queries not found in
[RFC9082] and responses not found in [RFC9083]. RDAP extensions are
also described in [RFC7480]. This document uniformly describes RDAP
extensions, clarifies their usage, and defines additional semantics
that were previously undefined.
2. The RDAP Extension Identifier
Section 6 of [RFC7480] describes the identifier used to signify RDAP
extensions and the IANA registry into which RDAP extensions are to be
registered.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
In brief, RDAP extensions identifiers start with an alphabetic
character and may contain alphanumeric characters and "_"
(underscore) characters. This formulation was explicitly chosen to
allow compatibility with variable names in programming languages and
transliteration with XML.
When in use in RDAP, extension identifiers are prepended to URL path
segments, URL query parameters, and JSON object member names (herein
further referred to as "JSON names"). In all cases, the extension
identifier acts as a namespace preventing collisions between
extension elements.
Additionally, implementers and operators can use the extension
identifiers to find an extensions definition (via the IANA registry).
RDAP extension identifiers have no explicit structure and are opaque
in that no inner-meaning can be "seen" in them. This document
restricts the syntax of RDAP extension identifiers from containing
two consecutive "_" (underscore) characters and reserves their use
for the future definition of structure (such as to define a
versioning scheme). That is, RDAP extensions MUST NOT define an
identifier with two consecutive underscore characters ("__") unless
explicitly adhering to an RFC describing such usage.
RDAP extensions MUST NOT define an extension identifier that when
prepended to an underscore character may collide with an existing
extension identifier. For example, if there were a pre-existing
identifier of "foo_bar", another extension could not define the
identifier "foo". Likewise, if there were a pre-existing identifier
of "foo_bar", another extension could not define the identifier
"foo_bar_buzz". However, an extension could define "foo" if "foobar"
pre-existed and vice versa.
For this reason, usage of an underscore character in RDAP extension
identifiers is NOT RECOMMENDED. Implementers should be aware that
many existing extension identifiers do contain underscore characters.
3. Usage in Queries
Section 5 of [RFC9082] describes the use of extension identifiers in
formulating URIs to query RDAP servers. The extension identifiers
are to be prepended to the path segments they use. For example, if
an extension uses the identifier foobar, then the path segments used
in that extension are prepended with foobar_. If the foobar extension
defines paths fizz and fazz, the URIs for this extension might take
the following form:
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
https://base.example/foobar_fizz
https://base.example/foobar_fazz
Although [RFC9082] describes the use of URI query strings, it does
not define their use with extensions. [RFC7480] instructs servers to
ignore unknown query parameters. Therefore, the use of query
parameters, prefixed or not with an extension identifier, is
undefined as defined in [RFC9082] and [RFC7480].
Despite this, there are several extensions that do specify query
parameters. This document updates [RFC9082] with regard to the use
of RDAP extension identifiers in URL query parameters.
When an RDAP extension defines query parameters to be used with a URL
path that is not defined by that RDAP extension, those query
parameter names SHOULD be constructed in the same manner as URL path
segments (that is, extensions ID + '_' + parameter name). See
section Section 6 regarding when usage of an extension identifier is
required.
When an RDAP extension defines query parameters to be used with a URL
path defined by that RDAP extension, prefixing of query parameters is
not required.
See Section 12 and Section 13 for other guidance on the use of query
parameters.
4. Usage in JSON
Section 2 of [RFC9083] describes the use of extension identifiers in
the JSON returned by RDAP servers. Just as in URIs, the extension
identifier is prepended to JSON names to create a namespace so that
the JSON name from one extension will not collide with the JSON name
of another extension. And just as with URIs, clients are to ignore
unknown JSON names.
The example given in [RFC9083] is as follows:
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
{
"handle" : "ABC123",
"lunarNIC_beforeOneSmallStep" : "TRUE THAT!",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"lunarNIC_harshMistressNotes" :
[
"In space,",
"nobody can hear you scream."
]
}
In this example, the extension identified by lunarNIC is prepended to
the names of both a JSON string and a JSON array.
4.1. Child JSON Values
Prefixing of the extension identifier is not required of children of
a prefixed JSON object defined by an RDAP extension.
The following example shows this use with a JSON object.
{
"handle" : "ABC123",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"lunarNIC_author" :
{
"firstInitial": "J",
"lastName": "Heinlein"
}
}
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
Here the JSON name "lunarNic_author" will separate the JSON from
other extensions that may have an "author" structure. But the JSON
contained within "lunarNIC_author" need not be prepended as the
extension collision is avoided by "lunarNIC_author".
4.2. Bare Extension Identifiers
Some RDAP extensions define only one JSON value and do not prefix it
with their RDAP extension identifier instead using the extension
identifier as the JSON name for that JSON value. That is, the
extension identifier is used "bare" and not appended with an
underscore character and subsequent names.
Consider the example in Section 4.1. Using the bare extension
identifier pattern, that example could be written as:
{
"handle" : "ABC123",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"lunarNIC" :
{
"firstInitial": "J",
"lastName": "Heinlein"
}
}
Usage of a bare extension identifier contravenes the guidance in
[RFC9083]. This document updates [RFC9083] to explicitly allow this
pattern.
5. Camel Casing
The styling convention used in [RFC9083] for JSON names is often
called "camel casing", in reference to the hump of a camel. In this
style, the first letter of every word, except the first word,
composing a name is capitalized. This convention was adopted to
visually separate the namespace from the name, with an underscore
between them.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
Though there is no explicit guidance to use camel case names,
extensions would be wise to continue the style.
6. Two Classes of Extensions
Though all RDAP extensions are to be registered in the IANA RDAP
extensions registry, there is an implicit two-class system of
extensions that comes from the inherit ownership of the RDAP
specifications by the IETF: extensions created by the IETF and
extensions not created by the IETF.
In the perspective of how extensions identifiers are used as
namespace separators, extensions created by the IETF are not required
to be prefixed with an extension identifier as the IETF can
coordinate its own activities to avoid name collisions. In practice,
most extensions owned by the IETF do use extension identifiers.
RDAP extensions not defined by the IETF MUST use the extension
identifier as a prefix in accordance with this document, [RFC7480],
[RFC9082], and [RFC9083]. And RDAP extensions defined by the IETF
SHOULD use the extension identifier as a prefix or as a bare
extension identifier (see Section 4.2) IETF defined RDAP extensions
that do not follow this guidance MUST describe the necessity to do
so.
7. Profile and Marker Extensions
Extensions are not required to extend the JSON or URL components of
RDAP.
While the RDAP extension mechanism was created to extend RDAP queries
and/or responses, extensions can also be used to signal server policy
(for example, specifying the conditions of use for existing response
structures). Extensions that are primarily about signalling server
policy are often called "profiles".
Some extensions exist to denote the usage of values placed into an
IANA registry, such as the IANA RDAP registries, or the usage of
extensions to technologies used by RDAP such as extended vCard/jCard
properties. Such extensions exist to "mark" these usages and are
often called "marker" extensions.
Regardless of the category of these extensions, their usage may also
leverage the appearance of their identifiers in the rdapConformance
array. Clients may use the /help query as defined in [RFC9082] to
discover the extensions available.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
8. Extension Versioning
As stated in Section 2, RDAP extensions are opaque and they posses no
explicit version despite the fact that some extension identifiers
include trailing numbers. That is, RDAP extensions without an
explicitly defined versioning scheme are opaquely versioned.
For example, fizzbuzz_1 may be the successor to fizzbuzz_0, but it
may also be an extension for a completely separate purpose. Only
consultation of the definition of fizzbuzz_1 will determine its
relationship with fizzbuzz_0. Additionally, fizzbuzz_99 may be the
predecessor of fizzbuzz_0.
If a future RFC defines a versioning scheme (such as using the
mechanims defined in section Section 2), an RDAP extension definition
MUST explicitly denote this compliance.
8.1. Backwards-Compatible Changes
If an RDAP extension author wants to publish a new version of an
extension that is backwards-compatible with the previous version,
then one option is for the new version of the extension to define a
new identifier, as well as requiring that both the previous
identifier and the new identifier be included in the
"rdapConformance" array of responses. That way, clients relying on
the previous version of the extension will continue to function as
intended, while clients wanting to make use of the newer version of
the extension can check for the new identifier in the response.
This approach can be used for an arbitrary number of new backwards-
compatible versions of a given extension. For an extension with a
large number of backwards-compatible successor versions, this may
lead to a large number of identifiers being included in responses.
An extension author may consider excluding older identifiers from the
set required by new successor versions, based on data about client
use/support or similar.
8.2. Backwards-Incompatible Changes
With the current extension model, an extension with a backwards-
incompatible change is indistinguishable from a new, unrelated
extension. Implementors of such changes should consider the
following:
* whether the new version of the extension can be provided alongside
the old version of the extension, so that a service can simply
support both during a transition period;
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
* whether some sort of client signalling should be supported, so
that clients can opt for the old or new version of the extension
in responses that they receive (see
[I-D.newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type] for an example of how this
might work); and
* whether the extension itself should define how versioning is
handled within the extension documentation.
9. Extension Identifiers in a Response
Extension specifications have customarily defined only one extension
identifier. However, there is no explicit limit on the number of
extension identifiers that may be defined in a single extension
specification. One example is [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search].
Section 4.1 offers the following guidance on using the extension
identifiers in RDAP responses:
A response to a "help" request will include identifiers for all of the specifications
supported by the server. A response to any other request will include only identifiers
for the specifications used in the construction of the response.
A strict interpretation of this wording where "construction of the
response" only refers to the JSON syntax would rule out the usage of
Section 7 extension IDs which are in common use in RDAP. This
document updates the guidance. For responses to queries other than
"help", a response MUST include in the rdapConformance array only
those extension identifiers necessary for a client to deserialize the
JSON and understand the semantic meaning of the content within the
JSON, and all extensions identifiers MUST be free from conflict in
both their syntactic and semantic meaning.
Note that this document does not update the guidance from Section 4.1
regarding "help" responses and the rdapConformance array.
When a server implementation supports multiple extensions, it is
RECOMMENDED that the server also support and return versioning
information as defined by [I-D.gould-regext-rdap-versioning].
10. Extension Definitions
Extensions must be documented in an RFC or in some other permanent
and readily available reference, in sufficient detail that
interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
Though RDAP gives each extension its own namespace, the definition of
an extension may re-use definitions found in the base RDAP
specification or in any other properly registered extension.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
[RFC9083] notes that the extension identifiers provide a "hint" to
the client as to how to interpret the response. This wording does
not intentionally restrict the extension to defining only JSON values
within the extensions namespace. Therefore, an extension may define
the use of its own JSON values together with the use of JSON values
from other extensions or RDAP specifications. As with the ICANN
profile or NRO profile extensions, the extension may simply signal
policy applied to already defined RDAP structures.
11. Existing Extension Registrations
The following extensions have been registered with IANA, but do not
comply with the requirements set out in the base specifications, as
clarified by this document:
* Extension identifier: fred
- RDAP conformance value: fred_version_0
- Field/path prefix: fred
* Extension identifier: artRecord
- RDAP conformance value: artRecord_level_0
- Field/path prefix: artRecord
* Extension identifier: platformNS
- RDAP conformance value: platformNS_level_0
- Field/path prefix: platformNS
* Extension identifier: regType
- RDAP conformance value: regType_level_0
- Field/path prefix: regType
Client authors should be aware that responses that make use of these
extensions may require special handling on the part of the client.
Also, while these extensions will be retained in the registry, future
extensions that are similarly noncompliant will not be registered.
To avoid any confusion with the operation of the existing entries, an
extension registration that attempts to use one of the RDAP
conformance values given in this section as an extension identifier
(and so as an RDAP conformance value also) will be rejected.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
12. Redirects
[RFC7480] describes the use of redirects in RDAP. Redirects are
prominent in the discovery of authoritative INR servers as the
process outlined in [RFC9224], which uses IANA allocations, does not
account for transfers of resources between INRs. Section 4.3
instructs servers to ignore unknown query parameters. As it relates
to issuing URLs for redirects, servers MUST NOT blindly copy query
parameters from a request to a redirect URL as query parameters may
contain sensitive information, such as security credentials, not
relevant to the target server of the URL. Following the advice in
[RFC7480], servers SHOULD only place query parameters in redirect
URLs when it is known by the origin server (the server issuing the
redirect) that the target server (the server referenced by the
redirect) can process the query parameter and the contents of the
query parameter are appropriate to be received by the target.
As it is unlikely that every server in a cross-authority, redirect
scenario will be upgraded to process every new extension, extensions
should not solely rely on query parameters to convey information
about a resource as query parameters are not guaranteed to survive a
redirect.
This does not mean extensions are prohibited from using query
parameters, but rather that the use of query parameters must be
applied for the scenarios appropriate for the use of the extension.
Therefore, extensions SHOULD NOT rely on query parameters when the
extension is to be used in scenarios requiring clients to find
authoritative servers, such as that described above, or other
scenarios using redirects among servers of differing authorities.
Extensions MAY use query parameters in scenarios where the client has
an a priori knowledge of the authoritative server to which queries
are to be sent. Such scenarios are generally queries intended to
yield multiple results, authentication or authorization, and other
scenarios where the behavior of requests across multiple authorities
is undefined.
In general, extension authors should be mindful of situations
requiring clients to directly handle redirects at the RDAP layer.
Some clients may not be utilizing HTTP libraries that provide such an
option, and many HTTP client libraries that do provide the option do
not provide it as a default behavior. Additionally, requiring
clients to handle redirects at the RDAP layer adds complexity to the
client in that additional logic must be implemented to handle
redirect loops, parameter deconfliction, and URL encoding. The
guidance given in Section 5.2 exists to simplify clients, especially
those constructed with shell scripts and HTTP command-line utilities.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
13. Referrals
It is common in the RDAP ecosystem to link from one RDAP resource to
another, such as can be found in domain registrations in gTLD DNRs.
These are typically conveyed in the link structure defined in
Section 4.2 of [RFC9083] and use the "application/rdap+json" media
type.
{
"value" : "https://regy.example/domain/foo.example",
"rel" : "related",
"href" : "https://regr.example/domain/foo.example",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
Extensions MUST explicitly define any required behavioral changes to
the processing of referrals, otherwise clients MUST assume the
information provided by referrals requires no additional processing
or modification to use in the dereferencing of the referral.
14. Acknowledgements
The following individuals have provided feedback and contributions to
the content and direction of this document: James Gould, Daniel
Keathley, and Ties de Kock.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[I-D.gould-regext-rdap-versioning]
Gould, J., Keathley, D., and M. Loffredo, "Versioning in
the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gould-regext-rdap-
versioning-02, 8 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gould-regext-
rdap-versioning-02>.
[I-D.newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type]
Newton, A. and J. Singh, "An RDAP With Extensions Media
Type", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-newton-
regext-rdap-x-media-type-01, 29 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-newton-
regext-rdap-x-media-type-01>.
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft rdap-extensions February 2024
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
RFC 7480, DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
[RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>.
15.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-rir-search]
Harrison, T. and J. Singh, "RDAP RIR Search", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-rir-
search-07, 30 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-
rdap-rir-search-07>.
[RFC9083] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>.
[RFC9224] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP) Service", STD 95, RFC 9224,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9224, March 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224>.
Authors' Addresses
Andy Newton
ICANN
Email: andy@hxr.us
Jasdip Singh
ARIN
Email: jasdips@arin.net
Tom Harrison
APNIC
Email: tomh@apnic.net
Newton, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 13]
