Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag
draft-ietf-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: February 4, 2019 August 3, 2018
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging
draft-ietf-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 updates RFC 7484 by
describing 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 February 4, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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 February 4, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
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 Provider Object Tags . . . . . 8
3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 February 4, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP
queries.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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 HYPHEN-MINUS
character "-" (U+002D, 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".
In combination with the rdapConformance attribute described in
Section 4, 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 HYPHEN-MINUS characters;
the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN-
MINUS 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 RDAP query URL is formed using
the base RDAP URL and entity path segment described in Section 3.1.5
of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], using "XXXX-YYY" as the value of the handle
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
identifier. The complete RDAP query URL becomes
"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 ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from
Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle identifiers
have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC"
respectively:
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"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" :
[
...
],
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"network" :
{
"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-YYY-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" ],
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
"links" :
[
...
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
...
],
"entities" :
[
{
"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 HYPHEN-
MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator
purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly
assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS 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, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service
provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding an rdapConformance
value to query responses as described in Section 4.
The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons:
1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it
avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of
unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]
provided multiple options for consideration:
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly
used in entity handles for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is
commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will
reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The
remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used
as separators in entity handles.
3. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags
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 contact
information for the registered service provider identifiers,
alphanumeric identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, and
base RDAP service URLs as shown in this example.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "RDAP bootstrap file for service provider object tags",
"services": [
[
["contact@example.com"],
["YYYY"],
[
"https://example.com/rdap/"
]
],
[
["contact@example.org"],
["ZZ54"],
[
"http://rdap.example.org/"
]
],
[
["contact@example.net"],
["1754"],
[
"https://example.net/rdap/",
"http://example.net/rdap/"
]
]
]
}
Figure 3
Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix
portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2
of RFC 5730 [RFC5730].
3.1. Registration Procedure
The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in RFC 8126 [RFC8126]. Provider
identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request.
Registration requests include an email address to be associated with
the registered service provider identifier, 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 February 4, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
4. RDAP Conformance
RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST
indicate conformance with this specification by including an
rdapConformance ([RFC7483]) value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0". The
information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions
Registry is described in Section 5.2.
Example rdapConformance structure with extension specified:
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0",
"rdap_objectTag_level_0"
]
Figure 4
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create the RDAP "Bootstrap Service Registry for
Provider Object Tags" 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].
5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure
Entries in this registry contain the following information:
o An email address that identifies a contact associated with the
registered RDAP service provider value.
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. The URLS are expected to supply the same data, but
they can differ in scheme or other components as required by the
service operator.
5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP
Extensions Registry:
Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag
Registry operator: Any
Published specification: This document.
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for
structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping.
6. 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".
6.1. 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
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
6.2. OpenRDAP
Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP
Location: https://www.openrdap.org
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
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 HYPHEN-MINUS
separator character only.
Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org
7. Security Considerations
This practice uses IANA as a well-known, central trusted authority to
allow users to get RDAP data from an authoritative source, reducing
the risk of sending queries to non-authoritative sources and
divulging query information to unintended parties. Using TLS
[RFC5246] to protect the connection to IANA allows the server to
authenticate itself as being operated by IANA and provides integrity
protection for the resulting referral information, as well as
providing privacy protection via data confidentiality. The
subsequent RDAP connection is performed as usual, and retains the
same security properties of the RDAP protocols themselves.
8. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, 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.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[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>.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. 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>.
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
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires February 4, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RDAP Object Tagging August 2018
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 6).
04: Keepalive refresh.
05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6.
00: Initial working group version.
01: Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the
separator character.
02: Nit fixes. Added rdapConformance text, switched back to HYPHEN
MINUS, and added IANA registration instructions per working group
last call discussion. Updated suffix syntax reference from the
IANA EPP ROID registry to RFC 5730 (which is what the IANA
registry references).
03: Shepherd writeup review updates to explain examples in
Section 2.
04: AD review update to clarify query path construction.
05: IESG review update: object naming practice, revised an example
to include multiple separator HYPHEN-MINUS characters, revised
security considerations, revised IANA considerations, revised IANA
registry description and registration procedure to add email
address contact information.
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 February 4, 2019 [Page 14]
