Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis
REGEXT Working Group S. Hollenbeck
Internet-Draft Verisign Labs
Obsoletes: 7483 (if approved) A. Newton
Intended status: Standards Track AWS
Expires: 28 August 2021 24 February 2021
JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-05
Abstract
This document describes JSON data structures representing
registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries
(RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are
used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query
responses. If approved, this document obsoletes RFC 7483.
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 28 August 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 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.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Use of JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Common Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Common Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Notices and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Language Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. Port 43 WHOIS Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8. Public IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.9. Object Class Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.10. An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Object Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. The Entity Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. The Nameserver Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3. The Domain Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4. The IP Network Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.5. The Autonomous System Number Object Class . . . . . . . . 43
6. Error Response Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7. Responding to Help Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8. Responding To Searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
9. Indicating Truncated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10.1. RDAP JSON Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 52
10.2. JSON Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10.2.1. Notice and Remark Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
10.2.2. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
10.2.3. Event Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
10.2.4. Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
10.2.5. Variant Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.1. RedDog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
11.2. Verisign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
11.3. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
11.4. Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) . . . . 68
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
13. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
13.1. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
13.2. URIs and IRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
13.3. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
13.4. Internationalized Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
14. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Appendix A. Suggested Data Modeling with the Entity Object
Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.1. Registrants and Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.2. Registrars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Appendix B. Modeling Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix C. Structured vs. Unstructured Addresses . . . . . . . 79
Appendix D. Secure DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appendix E. Motivations for Using JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Changes from RFC 7483 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
1. Introduction
This document describes responses in the JSON [RFC8259] format for
the queries as defined by the Registration Data Access Protocol Query
Format [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis]. A communication protocol for
exchanging queries and responses is described in [RFC7480]. If
approved, this document obsoletes RFC 7483.
1.1. Terminology and Definitions
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.
The following list describes terminology and definitions used
throughout this document:
DNR: Domain Name Registry or Domain Name Registrar
LDH: letters, digits, hyphen
member: data found within an object as defined by JSON [RFC8259]
object: a data structure as defined by JSON [RFC8259]
object class: the definition of members that may be found in JSON
objects described in this document
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
object instance: an instantiation or specific instance of an object
class
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
RIR: Regional Internet Registry
1.2. Data Model
The data model for JSON responses is specified in five sections:
1. simple data types conveyed in JSON primitive types (strings,
numbers, booleans, and null)
2. data structures specified as JSON arrays or objects that are used
repeatedly when building up larger objects
3. object classes representing structured data corresponding to a
lookup of a single object
4. arrays of objects representing structured data corresponding to a
search for multiple objects
5. the response to an error
The object classes represent responses for two major categories of
data: responses returned by RIRs for registration data related to IP
addresses, reverse DNS names, and Autonomous System numbers and
responses returned by DNRs for registration data related to forward
DNS names. The following object classes are returned by both RIRs
and DNRs:
1. domains
2. nameservers
3. entities
The information served by both RIRs and DNRs for these object classes
overlap extensively and are given in this document as a unified model
for both classes of service.
In addition to the object classes listed above, RIRs also serve the
following object classes:
1. IP networks
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
2. Autonomous System numbers
Object classes defined in this document represent a minimal set of
what a compliant client/server needs to understand to function
correctly; however, some deployments may want to include additional
object classes to suit individual needs. Anticipating this need for
extension, Section 2.1 of this document defines a mechanism for
extending the JSON objects that are described in this document.
Positive responses take two forms. A response to a lookup of a
single object in the registration system yields a JSON object, which
is the subject of the lookup. A response to a search for multiple
objects yields a JSON object that contains an array of JSON objects
that are the subject of the search. In each type of response, other
data structures are present within the topmost JSON object.
2. Use of JSON
2.1. Naming
Clients of these JSON responses SHOULD ignore unrecognized JSON
members in responses. Servers can insert members into the JSON
responses, which are not specified in this document, but that does
not constitute an error in the response. Servers that insert such
unspecified members into JSON responses SHOULD have member names
prefixed with a short identifier followed by an underscore followed
by a meaningful name. It has been observed that these short
identifiers aid software implementers with identifying the
specification of the JSON member, and failure to use one could cause
an implementer to assume the server is erroneously using a name from
this specification. This allowance does not apply to jCard [RFC7095]
objects. The full JSON name (the prefix plus the underscore plus the
meaningful name) SHOULD adhere to the character and name limitations
of the prefix registry described in [RFC7480]. Failure to use these
limitations could result in slower adoption as these limitations have
been observed to aid some client programming models.
Consider the following JSON response with JSON members, all of which
are specified in this document.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"handle" : "ABC123",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
]
}
Figure 1
If The Registry of the Moon desires to express information not found
in this specification, it might select "lunarNIC" as its identifying
prefix and insert, as an example, the member named
"lunarNIC_beforeOneSmallStep" to signify registrations occurring
before the first moon landing and the member named
"lunarNIC_harshMistressNotes" that contains other descriptive text.
Consider the following JSON response with JSON names, some of which
should be ignored by clients without knowledge of their meaning.
{
"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."
]
}
Figure 2
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Insertion of unrecognized members ignored by clients may also be used
for future revisions to this specification.
Clients processing JSON responses need to be prepared for members
representing registration data specified in this document to be
absent from a response. In other words, servers are free to omit
unrequired/optional JSON members containing registration data based
on their own policies.
Finally, all JSON names specified in this document are case
sensitive. Both servers and clients MUST transmit and process them
using the specified character case.
3. Common Data Types
JSON [RFC8259] defines the data types of a number, character string,
boolean, array, object, and null. This section describes the
semantics and/or syntax reference for common, JSON character strings
used in this document.
handle: DNRs and RIRs have registry-unique identifiers that
may be used to specifically reference an object
instance. The semantics of this data type as found
in this document are to be a registry-unique
reference to the closest enclosing object where the
value is found. The data type names "registryId",
"roid", "nic-handle", "registrationNo", etc., are
terms often synonymous with this data type. In
this document, the term "handle" is used. The term
exposed to users by clients is a presentation issue
beyond the scope of this document. This value is a
simple character string.
IPv4 addresses: The representation of IPv4 addresses in this
document uses the dotted-decimal notation. An
example of this textual representation is
"192.0.2.0".
IPv6 addresses: The representation of IPv6 addresses in this
document follow the forms outlined in [RFC5952].
An example of this textual representation is
"2001:db8::1:0:0:1".
country codes: Where the identity of a geopolitical nation or
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
country is needed, these identities are represented
with the alpha-2 or two-character country code
designation as defined in [ISO.3166.1988]. The
alpha-2 representation is used because it is freely
available, whereas the alpha-3 and numeric-3
standards are not.
LDH names: Textual representations of DNS names where the
labels of the domain are all "letters, digits,
hyphen" labels as described by [RFC5890]. Trailing
periods are optional.
Unicode names: Textual representations of DNS names where one or
more of the labels are U-labels as described by
[RFC5890]. Trailing periods are optional.
dates and times: The syntax for values denoting dates and times is
defined in [RFC3339].
URIs: The syntax for values denoting a Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) is defined by [RFC3986].
Contact information is defined using jCards as described in
[RFC7095]. The "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null
according to [RFC6350]. An empty "fn" member MAY be used when the
contact name does not exist or is redacted.
4. Common Data Structures
This section defines common data structures used in responses and
object classes.
4.1. RDAP Conformance
The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings,
each providing a hint as to the specifications used in the
construction of the response. This data structure MUST appear in the
topmost JSON object of a response and MUST NOT appear anywhere else.
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. The set of returned identifiers
MAY vary depending on the authorization level of the client.
An example rdapConformance data structure:
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
]
Figure 3
The string literal "rdap_level_0" signifies conformance with this
specification. When custom JSON values are inserted into responses,
conformance to those custom specifications MUST be indicated by
including a unique string literal value registered in the IANA RDAP
Extensions registry specified in [RFC7480]. For example, if the
fictional Registry of the Moon wants to signify that their JSON
responses are conformant with their registered extensions, the string
used might be "lunarNIC_level_0". These registered values aid the
identification of specifications for software implementers, and
failure to use them could result in slower adoption of extensions.
Example rdapConformance structure with custom extensions noted:
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0",
"lunarNIC_level_0"
]
Figure 4
4.2. Links
The "links" array is found in data structures to signify links to
other resources on the Internet. The relationship of these links is
defined by the IANA registry described by [RFC8288].
The following is an example of the link structure:
{
"value" : "https://example.com/context_uri",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.com/target_uri",
"hreflang" : [ "en", "ch" ],
"title" : "title",
"media" : "screen",
"type" : "application/json"
}
Figure 5
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
The JSON name/values of "rel", "href", "hreflang", "title", "media",
and "type" correspond to values found in Section 3 of [RFC8288]. The
"value" JSON value is the context URI as described by [RFC8288]. The
"value", "rel" and "href" JSON values MUST be specified. All other
JSON values are OPTIONAL. A "related" link relation MUST NOT include
an "href" URI that is the same as the "self" link relation "href" URI
to reduce the risk of infinite client processing loops.
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) returned in URIs SHOULD be
consistently returned in LDH name format to allow clients to process
these IDNs according to their capabilities.
This is an example of the "links" array as it might be found in an
object class:
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "up",
"href" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
]
Figure 6
4.3. Notices and Remarks
The "notices" and "remarks" data structures take the same form. The
notices structure denotes information about the service providing
RDAP information and/or information about the entire response,
whereas the remarks structure denotes information about the object
class that contains it (see Section 5 regarding object classes).
Both are arrays of objects. Each object contains a "title" string
representing the title of the object, a "type" string denoting a
registered type of remark or notice (see Section 10.2.1), an array of
strings named "description" for the purposes of conveying any
descriptive text, and a "links" array as described in Section 4.2.
The "description" array MUST be included. All other JSON values are
OPTIONAL.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
An example of the notices data structure:
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Terms of Use",
"description" :
[
"Service subject to The Registry of the Moon's TOS.",
"Copyright (c) 2020 LunarNIC"
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/terms_of_use.html"
}
]
}
]
Figure 7
It is the job of the clients to determine line breaks, spacing, and
display issues for sentences within the character strings of the
"description" array. Each string in the "description" array contains
a single complete division of human-readable text indicating to
clients where there are semantic breaks.
An example of the remarks data structure:
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
]
Figure 8
Note that objects in the "remarks" array may also have a "links"
array.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
While the "title" and "description" fields are intended primarily for
human consumption, the "type" string contains a well-known value to
be registered with IANA (see Section 10.2.1) for programmatic use.
An example of the remarks data structure:
"remarks" :
[
{
"type" : "object truncated due to authorization",
"description" :
[
"Some registration data may not have been given.",
"Use proper authorization credentials to see all of it."
]
}
]
Figure 9
While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a
response, the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a
response.
4.4. Language Identifier
This data structure consists solely of a name/value pair, where the
name is "lang" and the value is a string containing a language
identifier as described in [RFC5646].
"lang" : "mn-Cyrl-MN"
Figure 10
The "lang" attribute as defined in this section MAY appear anywhere
in an object class or data structure, except for in jCard objects.
vCard supports similar functionality by way of the LANGUAGE property
parameter (see Section 5.1 of RFC 6350 [RFC6350]).
4.5. Events
This data structure represents events that have occurred on an
instance of an object class (see Section 5 regarding object classes).
This is an example of an "events" array.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventActor" : "SOMEID-LUNARNIC",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventActor" : "OTHERID-LUNARNIC",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
Figure 11
The "events" array consists of objects, each with the following
members:
* "eventAction" -- a REQUIRED string denoting the reason for the
event
* "eventActor" -- an OPTIONAL identifier denoting the actor
responsible for the event
* "eventDate" -- a REQUIRED string containing the time and date the
event occurred
* "links" -- OPTIONAL; see Section 4.2
Events can be future dated. One use case for future dating of events
is to denote when an object expires from a registry.
The "links" array in this data structure is provided for references
to the event actor. In order to reference an RDAP entity, a "rel" of
"related" and a "type" of "application/rdap+json" is used in the link
reference.
See Section 10.2.3 for a list of values for the "eventAction" string.
See Appendix B regarding the various ways events can be modeled.
4.6. Status
This data structure, named "status", is an array of strings
indicating the state of a registered object (see Section 10.2.2 for a
list of values).
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
4.7. Port 43 WHOIS Server
This data structure, a member named "port43", is a simple character
string containing the fully qualified host name or IP address of the
WHOIS [RFC3912] server where the containing object instance may be
found. Note that this is not a URI, as there is no WHOIS URI scheme.
4.8. Public IDs
This data structure maps a public identifier to an object class. It
is named "publicIds" and is an array of objects, with each object
containing the following REQUIRED members:
* type -- a string denoting the type of public identifier
* identifier -- a string denoting a public identifier of the type
related to "type"
The following is an example of a publicIds structure.
"publicIds":
[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
]
Figure 12
4.9. Object Class Name
This data structure, a member named "objectClassName", gives the
object class name of a particular object as a string. This
identifies the type of object being processed. An objectClassName is
REQUIRED in all RDAP response objects so that the type of the object
can be interpreted.
4.10. An Example
This is an example response with both rdapConformance and notices
embedded:
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Content Removed",
"description" :
[
"Without full authorization, content has been removed.",
"Sorry, dude!"
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/192.0.2.0/24",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/redaction_policy.html"
}
]
}
],
"lang" : "en",
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"ipVersion" : "v4",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
]
}
Figure 13
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
5. Object Classes
Object classes represent structures appropriate for a response from
the queries specified in [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis].
Each object class contains a "links" array as specified in
Section 4.2. For every object class instance in a response, whether
the object class instance is directly representing the response to a
query or is embedded in other object class instances or is an item in
a search result set, servers SHOULD provide a link representing a URI
for that object class instance using the "self" relationship as
described in the IANA registry specified by [RFC8288]. As explained
in Section 5.2, this may be not always be possible for nameserver
data. Clients MUST be able to process object instances without a
self link. When present, clients can use the self link for caching
data. Servers MAY provide more than one self link for any given
object instance. Failure to provide any self link by a server may
result in clients being unable to cache object class instances.
Clients using self links for caching SHOULD NOT cache any object
class instances where the authority of the self link is different
than the authority of the server returning the data. Failing to do
so might result in cache poisoning.
Self links MUST contain a "type" element containing the "application/
rdap+json" media type when referencing RDAP object instances as
defined by this document.
This is an example of the "links" array with a self link to an object
class:
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
]
Figure 14
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
5.1. The Entity Object Class
The entity object class appears throughout this document and is an
appropriate response for the /entity/XXXX query defined in
"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format"
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis]. This object class represents the
information of organizations, corporations, governments, non-profits,
clubs, individual persons, and informal groups of people. All of
these representations are so similar that it is best to represent
them in JSON [RFC8259] with one construct, the entity object class,
to aid in the reuse of code by implementers.
The entity object class uses jCard [RFC7095] to represent contact
information, such as postal addresses, email addresses, phone numbers
and names of organizations and individuals. Many of the types of
information that can be represented with jCard have little or no use
in RDAP, such as birthdays, anniversaries, and gender.
The entity object is served by both RIRs and DNRs. The following is
an example of an entity that might be served by an RIR.
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["n", {}, "text",
["User", "Joe", "", "", ["ing. jr", "M.Sc."]]
],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["adr",
{
"type":"home",
"label":"123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n"
},
"text",
[
"", "", "", "", "", "", ""
]
],
["tel",
{
"type":["work", "voice"],
"pref":"1"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "cell", "voice", "video", "text"] },
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-4321"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
"joe.user@example.com"
],
["geo", {
"type":"work"
}, "uri", "geo:46.772673,-71.282945"],
["key",
{ "type":"work" },
"uri",
"https://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc"
],
["tz", {},
"utc-offset", "-05:00"],
["url", { "type":"home" },
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"uri", "https://example.org"]
]
],
"roles":[ "registrar" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events":[
{
"eventAction":"registration",
"eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"asEventActor":[
{
"eventAction":"last changed",
"eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
Figure 15
The entity object class can contain the following members:
* objectClassName -- the string "entity"
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
* handle -- a string representing a registry-unique identifier of
the entity
* vcardArray -- a jCard with the entity's contact information
* roles -- an array of strings, each signifying the relationship an
object would have with its closest containing object (see
Section 10.2.4 for a list of values)
* publicIds -- see Section 4.8
* entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by this section
* remarks -- see Section 4.3
* links -- see Section 4.2
* events -- see Section 4.5
* asEventActor -- this data structure takes the same form as the
events data structure (see Section 4.5), but each object in the
array MUST NOT have an "eventActor" member. These objects denote
that the entity is an event actor for the given events. See
Appendix B regarding the various ways events can be modeled.
* status -- see Section 4.6
* port43 -- see Section 4.7
* networks -- an array of IP network objects as defined in
Section 5.4
* autnums -- an array of autnum objects as defined in Section 5.5
Entities may also have other entities embedded with them in an array.
This can be used to model an organization with specific individuals
fulfilling designated roles of responsibility.
The following is an elided example of an entity with embedded
entities.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "ANENTITY",
"roles" : [ "registrar" ],
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle": "ANEMBEDDEDENTITY",
"roles" : [ "technical" ],
...
},
...
],
...
}
Figure 16
The following is an example of an entity that might be served by a
DNR.
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"status":[ "validated", "locked" ],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
],
"port43":"whois.example.net",
"events":[
{
"eventAction":"registration",
"eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction":"last changed",
"eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor":"joe@example.com"
}
]
}
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Figure 17
See Appendix A for use of the entity object class to model various
types of entities found in both RIRs and DNRs. See Appendix C
regarding structured vs. unstructured postal addresses in entities.
5.2. The Nameserver Object Class
The nameserver object class represents information regarding DNS
nameservers used in both forward and reverse DNS. RIRs and some DNRs
register or expose nameserver information as an attribute of a domain
name, while other DNRs model nameservers as "first class objects".
Please note that some of the examples in this section include lines
that have been wrapped for reading clarity.
The nameserver object class accommodates both models and degrees of
variation in between.
The following is an example of a nameserver object.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "ns.fóo.example",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
"v4": [ "192.0.2.1", "192.0.2.2" ],
"v6": [ "2001:db8::123" ]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/nameserver/
ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/nameserver/
ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
]
}
Figure 18
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Figure 18 is an example of a nameserver object with all appropriate
values given. Registries using a first-class nameserver data model
would embed this in domain objects as well as allowing references to
it with the "/nameserver" query type (all depending on the registry
operators policy). Other registries may pare back the information as
needed. Figure 19 is an example of a nameserver object as would be
found in RIRs and some DNRs, while Figure 20 is an example of a
nameserver object as would be found in other DNRs.
The following is an example of the simplest nameserver object:
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com"
}
Figure 19
The following is an example of a simple nameserver object that might
be commonly used by DNRs:
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"ipAddresses" : { "v6" : [ "2001:db8::123", "2001:db8::124" ] }
}
Figure 20
As nameservers can be modeled by some registries to be first-class
objects, they may also have an array of entities (Section 5.1)
embedded to signify parties responsible for the maintenance,
registrations, etc., of the nameservers.
The following is an elided example of a nameserver with embedded
entities.
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns.xn--fo-5ja.example",
...
"entities" :
[
...
],
...
}
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Figure 21
The nameserver object class can contain the following members:
* objectClassName -- the string "nameserver"
* handle -- a string representing a registry-unique identifier of
the nameserver
* ldhName -- a string containing the LDH name of the nameserver (see
Section 3)
* unicodeName -- a string containing a DNS Unicode name of the
nameserver (see Section 3)
* ipAddresses -- an object containing the following members:
- v6 -- an array of strings containing IPv6 addresses of the
nameserver
- v4 -- an array of strings containing IPv4 addresses of the
nameserver
* entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1
* status -- see Section 4.6
* remarks -- see Section 4.3
* links -- see Section 4.2
* port43 -- see Section 4.7
* events -- see Section 4.5
5.3. The Domain Object Class
The domain object class represents a DNS name and point of
delegation. For RIRs, these delegation points are in the reverse DNS
tree, whereas for DNRs, these delegation points are in the forward
DNS tree.
In both cases, the high-level structure of the domain object class
consists of information about the domain registration, nameserver
information related to the domain name, and entities related to the
domain name (e.g., registrant information, contacts, etc.).
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
The following is an elided example of the domain object showing the
high-level structure:
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXX",
"ldhName" : "blah.example.com",
...
"nameservers" :
[
...
],
...
"entities" :
[
...
]
}
Figure 22
The domain object class can contain the following members:
* objectClassName -- the string "domain"
* handle -- a string representing a registry-unique identifier of
the domain object instance
* ldhName -- a string describing a domain name in LDH form as
described in Section 3
* unicodeName -- a string containing a domain name with U-labels as
described in Section 3
* variants -- an array of objects, each containing the following
values:
- relation -- an array of strings, with each string denoting the
relationship between the variants and the containing domain
object (see Section 10.2.5 for a list of suggested variant
relations).
- idnTable -- the character string literal that represents the
Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) table that has been
registered in the IANA Repository of IDN Practices
[IANA_IDNTABLES].
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
- variantNames -- an array of objects, with each object
containing an "ldhName" member and a "unicodeName" member (see
Section 3).
* nameservers -- an array of nameserver objects as defined by
Section 5.2
* secureDNS -- an object with the following members:
- zoneSigned -- boolean true if the zone has been signed, false
otherwise.
- delegationSigned -- boolean true if there are DS records in the
parent, false otherwise.
- maxSigLife -- an integer representing the signature lifetime in
seconds to be used when creating the RRSIG DS record in the
parent zone [RFC5910].
- dsData -- an array of objects, each with the following members:
o keyTag -- an integer as specified by the key tag field of a
DNS DS record as specified by [RFC4034] in presentation
format
o algorithm -- an integer as specified by the algorithm field
of a DNS DS record as described by RFC 4034 in presentation
format
o digest -- a string as specified by the digest field of a DNS
DS record as specified by RFC 4034 in presentation format
o digestType -- an integer as specified by the digest type
field of a DNS DS record as specified by RFC 4034 in
presentation format
o events -- see Section 4.5
o links -- see Section 4.2
- keyData -- an array of objects, each with the following
members:
o flags -- an integer representing the flags field value in
the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation format
o protocol -- an integer representation of the protocol field
value of the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation format
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
o publicKey -- a string representation of the public key in
the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation format
o algorithm -- an integer as specified by the algorithm field
of a DNSKEY record as specified by [RFC4034] in presentation
format
o events -- see Section 4.5
o links -- see Section 4.2
See Appendix D for background information on these
objects.
* entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1
* status -- see Section 4.6
* publicIds -- see Section 4.8
* remarks -- see Section 4.3
* links -- see Section 4.2
* port43 -- see Section 4.7
* events -- see Section 4.5
* network -- represents the IP network for which a reverse DNS
domain is referenced; see Section 5.4
The following is an example of a JSON domain object representing a
reverse DNS delegation point that might be served by an RIR (note
that the dsData digest value has been modified to fit on one line).
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"nameservers" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns1.rir.example"
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns2.rir.example"
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
"delegationSigned": true,
"dsData":
[
{
"keyTag": 25345,
"algorithm": 8,
"digestType": 2,
"digest": "2788970E18EA14...C890C85B8205B94"
}
]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value": "https://example.net/domain/0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/domain/0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
],
"entities" :
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value": "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
]
}
],
"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 23
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
The following is an example of a JSON domain object representing a
forward DNS delegation point that might be served by a DNR. Note
that the secureDNS keyData publicKey value has been modified to fit
on a single line.
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "fóo.example",
"variants" :
[
{
"relation" : [ "registered", "conjoined" ],
"variantNames" :
[
{
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-cka.example",
"unicodeName" : "fõo.example"
},
{
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-fka.example",
"unicodeName" : "föo.example"
}
]
},
{
"relation" : [ "unregistered", "registration restricted" ],
"idnTable": ".EXAMPLE Swedish",
"variantNames" :
[
{
"ldhName": "xn--fo-8ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "fôo.example"
}
]
}
],
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"ENS_Auth ID",
"identifier":"1234567890"
}
],
"nameservers" :
[
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
"v6": [ "2001:db8::123", "2001:db8::124" ],
"v4": [ "192.0.2.1", "192.0.2.2" ]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns1.example.com",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns1.example.com",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"v6" : [ "2001:db8::125", "2001:db8::126" ],
"v4" : [ "192.0.2.3", "192.0.2.4" ]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns2.example.com",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns2.example.com",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
"zoneSigned": true,
"delegationSigned": true,
"maxSigLife": 604800,
"keyData":
[
{
"flags": 257,
"protocol": 3,
"algorithm": 8,
"publicKey": "AwEAAa6eDzronzjEDbT...Jg1M5N rBSPkuXpdFE=",
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"events":
[
{
"eventAction": "last changed",
"eventDate": "2012-07-23T05:15:47Z"
}
]
}
]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value": "https://example.net/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
},
{
"eventAction" : "transfer",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
},
{
"eventAction" : "expiration",
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"eventDate" : "2016-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
]
],
"status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 24
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
5.4. The IP Network Object Class
The IP network object class models IP network registrations found in
RIRs and is the expected response for the "/ip" query as defined by
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis]. There is no equivalent object class
for DNRs. The high- level structure of the IP network object class
consists of information about the network registration and entities
related to the IP network (e.g., registrant information, contacts,
etc.).
The following is an elided example of the IP network object type
showing the high-level structure:
{
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXX",
...
"entities" :
[
...
]
}
Figure 25
The following is an example of the JSON object for the network
registration information.
{
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"startAddress" : "2001:db8::",
"endAddress" : "2001:db8:0:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff",
"ipVersion" : "v6",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country" : "AU",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel" : "up",
"href" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/32",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 26
The IP network object class can contain the following members:
* objectClassName -- the string "ip network"
* handle -- a string representing the RIR-unique identifier of the
network registration
* startAddress -- a string representing the starting IP address of
the network, either IPv4 or IPv6
* endAddress -- a string representing the ending IP address of the
network, either IPv4 or IPv6
* ipVersion -- a string signifying the IP protocol version of the
network: "v4" signifies an IPv4 network, and "v6" signifies an
IPv6 network
* name -- a string representing an identifier assigned to the
network registration by the registration holder
* type -- a string containing an RIR-specific classification of the
network as per that RIR's registration model
* country -- a string containing the two-character country code of
the network
* parentHandle -- a string containing an RIR-unique identifier of
the parent network of this network registration
* status -- an array of strings indicating the state of the IP
network as defined by Section 4.6
* entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
* remarks -- see Section 4.3
* links -- see Section 4.2
* port43 -- see Section 4.7
* events -- see Section 4.5
5.5. The Autonomous System Number Object Class
The Autonomous System number (autnum) object class models Autonomous
System number registrations found in RIRs and represents the expected
response to an "/autnum" query as defined by
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis]. There is no equivalent object class
for DNRs. The high-level structure of the autnum object class
consists of information about the autonomous system number
registration and entities related to the autnum registration (e.g.,
registrant information, contacts, etc.) and is similar to the IP
network object class.
The following is an example of a JSON object representing an autnum.
{
"objectClassName" : "autnum",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"startAutnum" : 65536,
"endAutnum" : 65541,
"name": "AS-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"country": "AU",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/autnum/65537",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/autnum/65537",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 27
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
The Autonomous System number object class can contain the following
members:
* objectClassName -- the string "autnum"
* handle -- a string representing the RIR-unique identifier of the
autnum registration
* startAutnum -- an unsigned 32-bit integer representing the
starting number [RFC5396] in the block of Autonomous System
numbers
* endAutnum -- an unsigned 32-bit integer representing the ending
number [RFC5396] in the block of Autonomous System numbers
* name -- a string representing an identifier assigned to the autnum
registration by the registration holder
* type -- a string containing an RIR-specific classification of the
autnum as per that RIR's registration model
* status -- an array of strings indicating the state of the autnum
as defined by Section 4.6
* country -- a string containing the two-character country code of
the autnum
* entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1
* remarks -- see Section 4.3
* links -- see Section 4.2
* port43 -- see Section 4.7
* events -- see Section 4.5
6. Error Response Body
Some non-answer responses MAY return entity bodies with information
that could be more descriptive.
The basic structure of that response is an object class containing a
REQUIRED error code number (corresponding to the HTTP response code)
followed by an OPTIONAL string named "title" and an OPTIONAL array of
strings named "description".
This is an example of the common response body.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"errorCode": 418,
"title": "Your Beverage Choice is Not Available",
"description":
[
"I know coffee has more ummppphhh.",
"Sorry, dude!"
]
}
Figure 28
This is an example of the common response body with an
rdapConformance and notices data structures:
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Beverage Policy",
"description" :
[
"Beverages with caffeine for keeping horses awake."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/192.0.2.0/24",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/redaction_policy.html"
}
]
}
],
"lang" : "en",
"errorCode": 418,
"title": "Your beverage choice is not available",
"description":
[
"I know coffee has more ummppphhh.",
"Sorry, dude!"
]
}
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Figure 29
7. Responding to Help Queries
The appropriate response to /help queries as defined by
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis] is to use the notices structure as
defined in Section 4.3.
This is an example of a response to a /help query including the
rdapConformance data structure.
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Authentication Policy",
"description" :
[
"Access to sensitive data for users with proper credentials."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/auth_policy.html"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 30
8. Responding To Searches
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis] specifies three types of searches:
domains, nameservers, and entities. Responses to these searches take
the form of an array of object instances where each instance is an
appropriate object class for the search (i.e., a search for /domains
yields an array of domain object instances). These arrays are
contained within the response object.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
The names of the arrays are as follows:
* for /domains searches, the array is "domainSearchResults"
* for /nameservers searches, the array is "nameserverSearchResults"
* for /entities searches, the array is "entitySearchResults"
The following is an elided example of a response to a /domains
search.
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
...
"domainSearchResults" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "1-XXXX",
"ldhName" : "1.example.com",
...
},
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "2-XXXX",
"ldhName" : "2.example.com",
...
}
]
}
Figure 31
9. Indicating Truncated Responses
In cases where the data of a response needs to be limited or parts of
the data need to be omitted, the response is considered "truncated".
A truncated response is still valid JSON, but some of the results in
a search set or some of the data in an object are not provided by the
server. A server may indicate this by including a typed notice in
the response object.
The following is an elided example of a search response that has been
truncated.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Search Policy",
"type" : "result set truncated due to authorization",
"description" :
[
"Search results are limited to 25 per day per querying IP."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/search_policy.html"
}
]
}
],
"domainSearchResults" :
[
...
]
}
Figure 32
A similar technique can be used with a typed remark where a single
object has been returned and data in that object has been truncated.
Such an example might be an entity object with only a partial set of
the IP networks associated with it.
The following is an elided example of an entity truncated data.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "ANENTITY",
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle": "ANEMBEDDEDENTITY",
"roles" : [ "technical" ],
...
},
...
],
"networks" :
[
...
],
...
"remarks" :
[
{
"title" : "Data Policy",
"type" : "object truncated due to unexplainable reason",
"description" :
[
"Some of the data in this object has been removed."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/data_policy.html"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 33
10. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the description of the "transfer" event
action as described in Section 10.2.3.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
10.1. RDAP JSON Media Type Registration
IANA is requested to update the media type registration as described
below.
This specification registers the "application/rdap+json" media
type.
Type name: application
Subtype name: rdap+json
Required parameters: n/a
Encoding considerations: See Section 3.1 of [RFC6839].
Security considerations: The media represented by this identifier
does not have security considerations beyond that found in
Section 12 of [RFC8259].
Interoperability considerations: There are no known
interoperability problems regarding this media format.
Published specification: RFC <this new RFC number>
Applications that use this media type: Implementations of the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP).
Additional information: This media type is a product of the IETF
REGEXT working group. The REGEXT charter, information on the
REGEXT mailing list, and other documents produced by the REGEXT
working group can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
regext/.
Person & email address to contact for further information: IESG
<iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: none
Author: Andy Newton
Change controller: IETF
Provisional Registration: No (upon publication of this RFC)
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
10.2. JSON Values Registry
IANA has created a category in the protocol registries labeled
"Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", and within that category,
IANA has established a URL-referenceable, stand-alone registry
labeled "RDAP JSON Values". This new registry is for use in the
notices and remarks (Section 4.3), status (Section 4.6), role
(Section 5.1), event action (Section 4.5), and domain variant
relation (Section 5.3) fields specified in RDAP.
Each entry in the registry contains the following fields:
1. Value -- the string value being registered.
2. Type -- the type of value being registered. It should be one of
the following:
* "notice or remark type" -- denotes a type of notice or remark.
* "status" -- denotes a value for the "status" object member as
defined by Section 4.6.
* "role" -- denotes a value for the "role" array as defined in
Section 5.1.
* "event action" -- denotes a value for an event action as
defined in Section 4.5.
* "domain variant relation" -- denotes a relationship between a
domain and a domain variant as defined in Section 5.3.
3. Description -- a one- or two-sentence description regarding the
meaning of the value, how it might be used, and/or how it should
be interpreted by clients.
4. Registrant Name -- the name of the person registering the value.
5. Registrant Contact Information -- an email address, postal
address, or some other information to be used to contact the
registrant.
This registry is operated under the "Expert Review" policy defined in
[RFC8126].
Review of registrations into this registry by the designated
expert(s) should be narrowly judged on the following criteria:
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
1. Values in need of being placed into multiple types must be
assigned a separate registration for each type.
2. Values must be strings. They should be multiple words separated
by single space characters. Every character should be
lowercased. If possible, every word should be given in English
and each character should be US-ASCII.
3. Registrations should not duplicate the meaning of any existing
registration. That is, if a request for a registration is
significantly similar in nature to an existing registration, the
request should be denied. For example, the terms "maintainer"
and "registrant" are significantly similar in nature as they both
denote a holder of a domain name or Internet number resource. In
cases where it may be reasonably argued that machine
interpretation of two similar values may alter the operation of
client software, designated experts should not judge the values
to be of significant similarity.
4. Registrations should be relevant to the common usages of RDAP.
Designated experts may rely upon the serving of the value by a
DNR or RIR to make this determination.
The following sections provide initial registrations into this
registry.
10.2.1. Notice and Remark Types
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values"
registry:
* Value: result set truncated due to authorization
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The list of results does not contain all results due
to lack of authorization. This may indicate to some clients that
proper authorization will yield a longer result set.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: result set truncated due to excessive load
Type: notice and remark type
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Description: The list of results does not contain all results due
to excessively heavy load on the server. This may indicate to
some clients that requerying at a later time will yield a longer
result set.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: result set truncated due to unexplainable reasons
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The list of results does not contain all results for
an unexplainable reason. This may indicate to some clients that
requerying for any reason will not yield a longer result set.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: object truncated due to authorization
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The object does not contain all data due to lack of
authorization.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: object truncated due to excessive load
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The object does not contain all data due to
excessively heavy load on the server. This may indicate to some
clients that requerying at a later time will yield all data of the
object.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: object truncated due to unexplainable reasons
Type: notice and remark type
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Description: The object does not contain all data for an
unexplainable reason.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
10.2.2. Status
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values"
registry:
* Value: validated
Type: status
Description: Signifies that the data of the object instance has
been found to be accurate. This type of status is usually found
on entity object instances to note the validity of identifying
contact information.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: renew prohibited
Type: status
Description: Renewal or reregistration of the object instance is
forbidden.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: update prohibited
Type: status
Description: Updates to the object instance are forbidden.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: transfer prohibited
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Type: status
Description: Transfers of the registration from one registrar to
another are forbidden. This type of status normally applies to
DNR domain names.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: delete prohibited
Type: status
Description: Deletion of the registration of the object instance
is forbidden. This type of status normally applies to DNR domain
names.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: proxy
Type: status
Description: The registration of the object instance has been
performed by a third party. This is most commonly applied to
entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: private
Type: status
Description: The information of the object instance is not
designated for public consumption. This is most commonly applied
to entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: removed
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Type: status
Description: Some of the information of the object instance has
not been made available and has been removed. This is most
commonly applied to entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: obscured
Type: status
Description: Some of the information of the object instance has
been altered for the purposes of not readily revealing the actual
information of the object instance. This is most commonly applied
to entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: associated
Type: status
Description: The object instance is associated with other object
instances in the registry. This is most commonly used to signify
that a nameserver is associated with a domain or that an entity is
associated with a network resource or domain.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: active
Type: status
Description: The object instance is in use. For domain names, it
signifies that the domain name is published in DNS. For network
and autnum registrations it signifies that they are allocated or
assigned for use in operational networks. This maps to the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730] 'OK' status.
Registrant Name: IESG
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: inactive
Type: status
Description: The object instance is not in use. See 'active'.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: locked
Type: status
Description: Changes to the object instance cannot be made,
including the association of other object instances.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: pending create
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the creation of the
object instance but this action is not yet complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: pending renew
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the renewal of the
object instance but this action is not yet complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: pending transfer
Type: status
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Description: A request has been received for the transfer of the
object instance but this action is not yet complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: pending update
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the update or
modification of the object instance but this action is not yet
complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: pending delete
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the deletion or
removal of the object instance but this action is not yet
complete. For domains, this might mean that the name is no longer
published in DNS but has not yet been purged from the registry
database.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
10.2.3. Event Actions
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values"
registry:
* Value: registration
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was initially registered.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
* Value: reregistration
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was registered subsequently to
initial registration.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: last changed
Type: event action
Description: An action noting when the information in the object
instance was last changed.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: expiration
Type: event action
Description: The object instance has been removed or will be
removed at a pre-determined date and time from the registry.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: deletion
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was removed from the registry at
a point in time that was not pre-determined.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: reinstantiation
Type: event action
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Description: The object instance was reregistered after having
been removed from the registry.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: transfer
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was transferred from one
registrar to another.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: locked
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was locked (see the 'locked'
status).
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: unlocked
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was unlocked (see the 'locked'
status).
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
10.2.4. Roles
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values"
registry:
* Value: registrant
Type: role
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Description: The entity object instance is the registrant of the
registration. In some registries, this is known as a maintainer.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: technical
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance is a technical contact for
the registration.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: administrative
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance is an administrative
contact for the registration.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: abuse
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance handles network abuse
issues on behalf of the registrant of the registration.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: billing
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance handles payment and
billing issues on behalf of the registrant of the registration.
Registrant Name: IESG
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: registrar
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance represents the authority
responsible for the registration in the registry.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: reseller
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance represents a third party
through which the registration was conducted (i.e. not the
registry or registrar).
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: sponsor
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance represents a domain policy
sponsor, such as an ICANN approved sponsor.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: proxy
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance represents a proxy for
another entity object, such as a registrant.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: notifications
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Type: role
Description: An entity object instance designated to receive
notifications about association object instances.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: noc
Type: role
Description: The entity object instance handles communications
related to a network operations center (NOC).
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
10.2.5. Variant Relations
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values"
registry:
* Value: registered
Type: domain variant relation
Description: The variant names are registered in the registry.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: unregistered
Type: domain variant relation
Description: The variant names are not found in the registry.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: registration restricted
Type: domain variant relation
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Description: Registration of the variant names is restricted to
certain parties or within certain rules.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: open registration
Type: domain variant relation
Description: Registration of the variant names is available to
generally qualified registrants.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
* Value: conjoined
Type: domain variant relation
Description: Registration of the variant names occurs
automatically with the registration of the containing domain
registration.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
11. 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.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
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".
11.1. RedDog
* Responsible Organization: NIC Mexico
* Location: https://reddog.mx/
* Description: RedDog implements all the functionality of an RDAP
Server defined in RFCs 7480,7481,7482 and 7483. RedDog is highly
configurable and extensible to fit the needs of the developers and
operators.
* Level of Maturity: Production.
* Coverage: RedDog supports all lookups, searches and responses for
all object classes described in RFC 7482 and RFC 7483.
* Version Compatibility: RFC 7482 and RFC 7483
* Licensing: Apache License 2.0
* Contact Information: reddog-dev@nic.mx
* Information last updated: November 22, 2019
11.2. Verisign
* Responsible Organization: Verisign
* Location: https://rdap.verisign.com/com/v1/,
https://rdap.verisign.com/net/v1/
* Description: Verisign's production RDAP service for the .com and
.net gTLDs.
* Level of Maturity: Production.
* Coverage: Lookup of domain names, name servers, entities; name
server search by IP address; help.
* Version Compatibility: RFC 7483
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
* Contact Information: info@verisign-grs.com
11.3. Verisign Labs
* Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs
* Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/rdap/v1/
* Description: Verisign's experimental RDAP service for the .cc and
.tv ccTLDs.
* Level of Maturity: Experimental.
* Coverage: Lookup of domain names, name servers, entities; name
server search by IP address; basic search; regular expression
search; federated authentication; help.
* Version Compatibility: RFC 7483
* Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com
11.4. Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
* Responsible Organization: Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre
(APNIC)
* Location: https://rdap.apnic.net/, https://github.com/APNIC-net/
rdapd
* Description: APNIC's production RDAP service for Internet number
resouces.
* Level of Maturity: Production.
* Coverage: Lookup of IP networks, AS numbers, domains, and
entities. Also domain search by name, entity search by handle or
full name, and help responses.
* Version Compatibility: RFC 7483
* Contact Information: helpdesk@apnic.net
12. Security Considerations
This specification models information serialized in JSON format. As
JSON is a subset of JavaScript, implementations are advised to follow
the security considerations outlined in Section 12 of [RFC8259] to
prevent code injection.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Though not specific to JSON, RDAP implementers should be aware of the
security considerations specified in [RFC7480] and the security
requirements and considerations in [RFC7481].
RDAP responses allow for retrieval of DNSSEC (key) related
information, but the RRSIG DS from the parent zone is not conveyed
alongside it. This means that the DNSSEC keys retrieved by RDAP are
disconnected from their containing PKI, and as such are not generally
expected to be trusted without additional information. In
particular, the HTTPS channel protecting the RDAP connection is not
expected to be authorized to certify the validity of the DNSSEC keys.
Clients caching data, especially clients using RDAP-specific caches
(instead of HTTP-layer caches), should have safeguards to prevent
cache poisoning. See Section 5 for advice on using the self links
for caching.
Finally, service operators should be aware of the privacy mechanisms
noted in Section 14.
13. Internationalization Considerations
13.1. Character Encoding
The default text encoding for JSON responses in RDAP is UTF-8
[RFC3629], and all servers and clients MUST support UTF-8.
13.2. URIs and IRIs
[RFC7480] defines the use of URIs and IRIs in RDAP.
13.3. Language Tags
Section 4.4 defines the use of language tags in the JSON responses
defined in this document.
13.4. Internationalized Domain Names
IDNs are denoted in this specification by the separation of DNS names
in LDH form and Unicode form (see Section 3). Representation of IDNs
in registries is described by the "variants" object in Section 5.3
and the suggested values listed in Section 10.2.5.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
14. Privacy Considerations
This specification suggests status values to denote contact and
registrant information that has been marked as private and/or has
been removed or obscured. See Section 10.2.2 for the complete list
of status values. A few of the status values indicate that there are
privacy concerns associated with the object instance. The following
status codes SHOULD be used to describe data elements of a response
when appropriate:
private -- The object is not be shared in query responses, unless
the user is authorized to view this information.
removed -- Data elements within the object have been collected but
have been omitted from the response. This option can be used to
prevent unauthorized access to associated object instances without
the need to mark them as private.
obscured -- Data elements within the object have been collected,
but the response value has been altered so that values are not
easily discernible. A value changed from "1212" to "XXXX" is an
example of obscured data. This option may reveal privacy
sensitive information and should only be used when data
sensitivity does not require a more protective option like
"private" or "removed".
See Appendix A.1 for an example of applying those values to contacts
and registrants.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis]
Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02, 8 September 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-regext-
rfc7482bis-02.txt>.
[ISO.3166.1988]
International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
the representation of names of countries, 3rd edition",
ISO Standard 3166, August 1988.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
[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>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[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>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of
Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5396, December 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5396>.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7095>.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
15.2. Informative References
[IANA_IDNTABLES]
IANA, "Repository of IDN Practices",
<https://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables>.
[JSON_ascendancy]
MacVittie, L., "The Stealthy Ascendancy of JSON", April
2011, <https://devcentral.f5.com/s/articles/the-stealthy-
ascendancy-of-json>.
[JSON_performance_study]
Nurseitov, N., Paulson, M., Reynolds, R., and C. Izurieta,
"Comparison of JSON and XML Data Interchange Formats: A
Case Study", 2009,
<https://www.cs.montana.edu/izurieta/pubs/caine2009.pdf>.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.
[RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.
[RFC6839] Hansen, T. and A. Melnikov, "Additional Media Type
Structured Syntax Suffixes", RFC 6839,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6839, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6839>.
[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. Suggested Data Modeling with the Entity Object Class
A.1. Registrants and Contacts
This document does not provide specific object classes for
registrants and contacts. Instead, the entity object class may be
used to represent a registrant or contact. When the entity object is
embedded inside a containing object such as a domain name or IP
network, the "roles" string array can be used to signify the
relationship. It is recommended that the values from Section 10.2.4
be used.
The following is an example of an elided containing object with an
embedded entity that is both a registrant and administrative contact:
{
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant", "administrative" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 34
In many use cases, it is necessary to hide or obscure the information
of a registrant or contact due to policy or other operational
matters. Registries can denote these situations with "status" values
(see Section 10.2.2).
The following is an elided example of a registrant with information
changed to reflect that of a third party.
{
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
...
"roles" : [ "registrant", "administrative" ],
"status" : [ "proxy", "private", "obscured" ]
}
]
}
Figure 35
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
A.2. Registrars
This document does not provide a specific object class for
registrars, but like registrants and contacts (see Appendix A.1), the
"roles" string array maybe used. Additionally, many registrars have
publicly assigned identifiers. The publicIds structure (Section 4.8)
represents that information.
The following is an example of an elided containing object with an
embedded entity that is a registrar:
{
...
"entities":[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe's Fish, Chips, and Domains"],
["kind", {}, "text", "org"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{
"type":["work", "voice"],
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
"pref":"1"
},
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joes_fish_chips_and_domains@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles":[ "registrar" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"alternate",
"type":"text/html",
"href":"https://www.example.com"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 36
Appendix B. Modeling Events
Events represent actions that have taken place against a registered
object at a certain date and time. Events have three properties: the
action, the actor, and the date and time of the event (which is
sometimes in the future). In some cases, the identity of the actor
is not captured.
Events can be modeled in three ways:
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
1. events with no designated actor
2. events where the actor is only designated by an identifier
3. events where the actor can be modeled as an entity
For the first use case, the events data structure (Section 4.5) is
used without the "eventActor" object member.
This is an example of an "events" array without the "eventActor".
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
Figure 37
For the second use case, the events data structure (Section 4.5) is
used with the "eventActor" object member.
This is an example of an "events" array with the "eventActor".
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventActor" : "XYZ-NIC",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
Figure 38
For the third use case, the "asEventActor" array is used when an
entity (Section 5.1) is embedded into another object class. The
"asEventActor" array follows the same structure as the "events" array
but does not have "eventActor" attributes.
The following is an elided example of a domain object with an entity
as an event actor.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "foo.example",
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
...
"entities" :
[
{
"handle" : "XXXX",
...
"asEventActor" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 39
Appendix C. Structured vs. Unstructured Addresses
The entity (Section 5.1) object class uses jCard [RFC7095] to
represent contact information, including postal addresses. jCard has
the ability to represent multiple language preferences, multiple
email address and phone numbers, and multiple postal addresses in
both a structured and unstructured format. This section describes
the use of jCard for representing structured and unstructured
addresses.
The following is an example of a jCard.
{
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["n", {}, "text",
["User", "Joe", "", "", ["ing. jr", "M.Sc."]]
],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["adr",
{
"type":"home",
"label":"123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n"
},
"text",
[
"", "", "", "", "", "", ""
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["tel",
{
"type":["work", "cell", "voice", "video", "text"]
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-1234"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
],
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
["geo", {
"type":"work"
}, "uri", "geo:46.772673,-71.282945"],
["key",
{ "type":"work" },
"uri", "https://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc"
],
["tz", {},
"utc-offset", "-05:00"],
["url", { "type":"home" },
"uri", "https://example.org"]
]
]
}
Figure 40
The arrays in Figure 40 with the first member of "adr" represent
postal addresses. In the first example, the postal address is given
as an array of strings and constitutes a structured address. For
components of the structured address that are not applicable, an
empty string is given. Each member of that array aligns with the
positions of a vCard as given in [RFC6350]. In this example, the
following data corresponds to the following positional meanings:
1. post office box -- not applicable; empty string
2. extended address (e.g., apartment or suite number) -- Suite 1234
3. street address -- 4321 Rue Somewhere
4. locality (e.g., city) -- Quebec
5. region (e.g., state or province) -- QC
6. postal code -- G1V 2M2
7. country name (full name) -- Canada
The second example is an unstructured address. It uses the "label"
attribute, which is a string containing a newline (\n) character to
separate address components in an unordered, unspecified manner.
Note that in this example, the structured address array is still
given but that each string is an empty string.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Appendix D. Secure DNS
Section 5.3 defines the "secureDNS" member to represent secure DNS
information about domain names.
DNSSEC provides data integrity for DNS through the digital signing of
resource records. To enable DNSSEC, the zone is signed by one or
more private keys and the signatures are stored as RRSIG records. To
complete the chain of trust in the DNS zone hierarchy, a digest of
each DNSKEY record (which contains the public key) must be loaded
into the parent zone, stored as DS records, and signed by the
parent's private key (RRSIG DS record), as indicated in "Resource
Records for the DNS Security Extensions" [RFC4034]. Creating the DS
records in the parent zone can be done by the registration authority
"Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" [RFC5910].
Only DS-related information is provided by RDAP, since other
information is not generally stored in the registration database.
Other DNSSEC-related information can be retrieved with other DNS
tools such as dig.
The domain object class (Section 5.3) can represent this information
using either the "dsData" or "keyData" object arrays. Client
implementers should be aware that some registries do not collect or
do not publish all of the secure DNS meta-information.
Appendix E. Motivations for Using JSON
This section addresses a common question regarding the use of JSON
over other data formats, most notably XML.
It is often pointed out that many DNRs and one RIR support the EPP
[RFC5730] standard, which is an XML serialized protocol. The logic
is that since EPP is a common protocol in the industry, it follows
that XML would be a more natural choice. While EPP does influence
this specification quite a bit, EPP serves a different purpose, which
is the provisioning of Internet resources between registries and
accredited registrars and serving a much narrower audience than that
envisioned for RDAP.
By contrast, RDAP has a broader audience and is designed for public
consumption of data. Experience from RIRs with first generation
RESTful web services for WHOIS indicate that a large percentage of
clients operate within browsers and other platforms where full-blown
XML stacks are not readily available and where JSON is a better fit.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Additionally, while EPP is used in much of the DNR community it is
not a universal constant in that industry. And finally, EPP's use of
XML predates the specification of JSON. If EPP had been defined
today, it may very well have used JSON instead of XML.
Beyond the specific DNR and RIR communities, the trend in the broader
Internet industry is also switching to JSON over XML, especially in
the area of RESTful web services (see [JSON_ascendancy]). Studies
have also found that JSON is generally less bulky and consequently
faster to parse (see [JSON_performance_study]).
Acknowledgments
This document is derived from original work on RIR responses in JSON
by Byron J. Ellacott, Arturo L. Servin, Kaveh Ranjbar, and Andrew
L. Newton. Additionally, this document incorporates work on DNR
responses in JSON by Ning Kong, Linlin Zhou, Jiagui Xie, and Sean
Shen.
The components of the DNR object classes are derived from a
categorization of WHOIS response formats created by Ning Kong, Linlin
Zhou, Guangqing Deng, Steve Sheng, Francisco Arias, Ray Bellis, and
Frederico Neves.
Tom Harrison, Murray Kucherawy, Ed Lewis, Audric Schiltknecht, Naoki
Kambe, Maarten Bosteels, Mario Loffredo, and Jasdip Singh contributed
significant review comments and provided clarifying text. James
Mitchell provided text regarding the processing of unknown JSON
attributes and identified issues leading to the remodeling of events.
Ernie Dainow and Francisco Obispo provided concrete suggestions that
led to a better variant model for domain names.
Ernie Dainow provided the background information on the secure DNS
attributes and objects for domains, informative text on DNSSEC, and
many other attributes that appear throughout the object classes of
this document.
The switch to and incorporation of jCard was performed by Simon
Perreault.
Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy chaired the IETF's WEIRDS working
group from which this document was originally created. James Galvin
and Antoin Verschuren chaired the REGEXT working group that worked on
the -bis version.
Changes from RFC 7483
00: Initial version ported from RFC 7483. Addressed known errata.
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
Added Implementation Status section.
01: Updated references to 7482 to 7482bis Internet-Draft. Updated
"Change Log" to "Changes from RFC 7483". Added APNIC
implementation status. Adjusted case of "xxxx" used in examples
where "XXXX" was previously used, and removed an "X" from "XXXXX".
Changed IPv6 address example using "C00" to "c00". Added "a
string representing" to the definitions of startAddress and
endAddress. Removed "entity" from "Autonomous System Number
Entity Object Class". Added "an unsigned 32-bit integer" to the
definition of startAutnum and endAutnum. Added "a string
representing" to the definition of name in the IP network and ASN
object classes. Clarified rdapConformance identifier registration
expectations in Section 4.1. Changed "lunarNic_level_0" to
"lunarNIC_level_0". Clarified that the "value", "rel" and "href"
JSON values MUST be specified in the "links" array. Clarified
that the "description" array is required in the Notices and
Remarks data structures and other values are OPTIONAL. Noted that
all members of the "events" and "Public IDs" arrays are REQUIRED.
Fix "self" link values in examples. Changed "http" to "https"
link values in examples. Noted that Figure 18 is an example of a
nameserver object with all "appropriate" values given. In
appendix C, quoted the word "label" in "label attribute". Added
reference to "status" definition in the descriptions for IP
networks and autnums. Fixed a 404 for the informative reference
to "The Stealthy Ascendancy of JSON". Added "boolean" to the
definition of zoneSigned. Clarified REQUIRED and OPTIONAL members
of the "events" array. Changed "SHOULD not" to "SHOULD NOT" in
Section 5. Updated normative references (5226-8126, 5988-8288,
7159-8259). Changed examples using "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example" to
split URLs to avoid long lines.
00: Initial working group version. Added acknowledgments.
01: Changed "The "lang" attribute may appear anywhere in an object
class or data structure except for in jCard objects" to "The
"lang" attribute as defined in this section MAY appear anywhere in
an object class or data structure, except for in jCard objects.
jCard supports similar functionality by way of the LANGUAGE
property parameter (see Section 5.1 of RFC 6350 [RFC6350]".
Changed "simple data types conveyed in JSON strings" to "simple
data types conveyed in JSON primitive types (strings, numbers,
booleans, and null)". Changed "In other words, servers are free
to not include JSON members containing registration data based on
their own policies" to "In other words, servers are free to omit
unrequired/optional JSON members containing registration data
based on their own policies". Changed "This data structure
appears only in the topmost JSON object of a response" to "This
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
data structure MUST appear in the topmost JSON object of a
response". Changed "Some non-answer responses may return entity
bodies with information that could be more descriptive" to "Some
non-answer responses MAY return entity bodies with information
that could be more descriptive". Changed "The basic structure of
that response is an object class containing an error code number
(corresponding to the HTTP response code) followed by a string
named "title" and an array of strings named "description"" to "The
basic structure of that response is an object class containing a
REQUIRED error code number (corresponding to the HTTP response
code) followed by an OPTIONAL string named "title" and an OPTIONAL
array of strings named "description"". Changed the "Autonomous
System Number Object Class" section title to "The Autonomous
System Number Object Class" for consistency with other section
titles. Removed trailing periods in the "Terminology and
Definitions" section for consistency. Changed instances of
"lunarNic" to "lunarNIC" for consistency. Removed an extraneous
trailing period after the eventDate description. Changed a "." to
";" in the description of the "network" member of the domain
object class. Changed "The high-level structure of the autnum
object class consists of information about the network
registration" to "The high-level structure of the autnum object
class consists of information about the autonomous system number
registration". Changed "registry unique" to "registry-unique".
02: Changed "registrant" to "registrar" in the description of the
"transfer" event action to address erratum 6158. Added IANA
instructions to correct the description of the value in the
registry. Added text to Section 4.2 to note that "self" and
"related" "href" URIs MUST NOT be the same. Added text to
Section 4.2 to describe return of IDNs in LDH name format.
03: Added text to note that the "fn" member of a contact object MAY
be empty in Section 3.
04: Added text to clarify rdapConformance requirements in
Section 4.1.
05: Added "obsoletes 7483" to the headers, Abstract, and
Introduction. Updated BCP14 template. Updated IANA
Considerations to note that this new RFC (a product of the REGEXT
working group) replaces 7483. Changed "simple string" to "simple
character string" in Sections 3 and 4.7. Clarified requirement
for the "fn" member in Section 3. Modified the requirement for
rdapConformance placement in Section 4.1. Changed "jCard" to
"vCard" LANGUAGE property reference in Section 4.4. Changed "no
use" to "little or no use" in Section 5.1. Added example line
wrap note in Section 5.2. Modified the definition of "idnTable"
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON Responses February 2021
in Section 5.3. Modified the dsData and keyData examples in
Section 5.3. Changed "2001:c00::/23" to "2001:db8::/32" in
Section 5.4. Expanded the definition of "type" in Sections 5.4
and 5.5. Modified example autnums in Section 5.5. Added text to
the Security Considerations section to note that DNSSEC
information returned in a response can not be trusted directly.
Authors' Addresses
Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: https://www.verisignlabs.com/
Andy Newton
Amazon Web Services, Inc.
13200 Woodland Park Road
Herndon, VA 20171
United States of America
Email: andy@hxr.us
Hollenbeck & Newton Expires 28 August 2021 [Page 86]
