Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-weirds-json-response
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response
Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck
Expires: July 4, 2015 Verisign Labs
December 31, 2014
JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-14
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.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Notices And Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Language Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.7. Port 43 WHOIS Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8. Public IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.9. Object Class Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.10. An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Object Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. The Entity Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. The Nameserver Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. The Domain Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4. The IP Network Object Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5. Autonomous System Number Entity Object Class . . . . . . 44
6. Error Response Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7. Responding to Help Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8. Responding To Searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
9. Indicating Truncated Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
10.1. RDAP JSON Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 54
10.2. JSON Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
10.2.1. Notice and Remark Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
10.2.2. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
10.2.3. Event Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
10.2.4. Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
10.2.5. Variant Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
12. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
12.1. Character Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
12.2. URIs and IRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
12.3. Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
12.4. Internationalized Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
13. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
14. Contributing Authors and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . 72
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Appendix A. Suggested Data Modeling with the Entity Object Class 75
A.1. Registrants and Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
A.2. Registrars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix B. Modeling Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix C. Structured vs Unstructured Addresses . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix D. Secure DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix E. Motivations for Using JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix F. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
1. Introduction
This document describes responses in the JSON [RFC7159] format for
the queries as defined by the Registration Data Access Protocol
Lookup Format [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query].
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] describes a communication protocol for
exchanging queries and responses.
1.1. Terminology and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]
when specified in their uppercase forms.
The following list describes terminology and definitions used
throughout this document:
DNR: Domain Name Registry
LDH: Letters, Digits, Hyphen
member: data found within an object as defined by JSON
[RFC7159].
object: a data structure as defined by JSON [RFC7159].
object class: the definition of members that may be found in JSON
objects described in this document.
object instance: an instantiation or specific instance of an object
class.
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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 strings
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 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) for
registrations data related to IP addresses, reverse DNS names, and
Autonomous System numbers; and responses returned by Domain Name
Registries (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
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
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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 which 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
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. Failure to use these limitations could
result in slower adoption as these limitations have been observed to
aid some client programming models.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Consider the following JSON response with JSON members, all of which
are specified in this document.
{
"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" containing other descriptive text.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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
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 not
include 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 [RFC7159] 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
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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.
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
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 (JSON vCards) as
described in [RFC7095]
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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 appears only in
the top most JSON object of a response.
An example rdapConformance data structure:
"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 use a string prefixed
with the appropriate identifier from the IANA RDAP Extensions
registry specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. 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 prefixes 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 [RFC5988].
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
The following is an example of the link structure:
{
"value" : "http://example.com/context_uri",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.com/target_uri",
"hreflang" : [ "en", "ch" ],
"title" : "title",
"media" : "screen",
"type" : "application/json"
}
Figure 5
The JSON name/values of "rel", "href", "hreflang", "title", "media",
and "type" correspond to values found in Section 5 of [RFC5988]. The
"value" JSON value is the context URI as described by [RFC5988]. The
"href" JSON value MUST be specified. All other JSON values are
OPTIONAL.
This is an example of the "links" array as it might be found in an
object class:
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "http://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value" : "http://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "up",
"href" : "http://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,
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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 an optional "title"
string representing the title of the object, an optional "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 an optional "links"
array as described in Section 4.2.
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" : "http://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "http://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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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.
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 top most 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].
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"lang" : "mn-Cyrl-MN"
Figure 10
The 'lang' attribute may appear anywhere in an object class or data
structure except for in jCard objects.
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.
"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:
o 'eventAction' -- a string denoting the reason for the event
o 'eventActor' -- an optional identifier denoting the actor
responsible for the event
o 'eventDate' -- a string containing the time and date the event
occurred.
o 'links' -- 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
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"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).
4.7. Port 43 WHOIS Server
This data structure, a member named 'port43', is a simple 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 members:
o type - a string denoting the type of public identifier
o identifier - a public identifier of the type denoted by '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
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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:
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Content Removed",
"description" :
[
"Without full authorization, content has been removed.",
"Sorry, dude!"
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "http://example.net/ip/192.0.2.0/24",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "http://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
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
5. Object Classes
Object classes represent structures appropriate for a response from
the queries specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query].
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 [RFC5988]. As explained
in Section 5.2, this may be not always be possible for name server
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" : "http://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
]
Figure 14
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 Lookup Format
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]. 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 [RFC7159] with one construct, the entity object class,
to aid in the re-use 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 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",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"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",
"http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc"
],
["tz", {},
"utc-offset", "-05:00"],
["url", { "type":"home" },
"uri", "http://example.org"]
]
],
"roles":[ "registrar" ],
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"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":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"http://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:
o objectClassName -- the string "entity"
o handle -- a string representing an registry unique identifier of
the entity
o vcardArray -- a jCard with the entity's contact information
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
o 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)
o publicIds - see Section 4.8
o entities - an array of entity objects as defined by this section.
o remarks -- see Section 4.3
o links -- see Section 4.2
o events -- see Section 4.5
o 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.
o status -- see Section 4.6
o port43 -- see Section 4.7
o networks -- an array of IP network objects as defined in
Section 5.4
o 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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
The following is an elided example of an entity with embedded
entities.
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "ANENTITY",
"roles" : [ "registrar" ],
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle": "ANEMBEDDEDENTITY",
"roles" : [ "technical" ],
...
},
...
],
...
}
Figure 16
The following is an example of a 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"],
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
["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"
]
]
],
"status":[ "validated", "locked" ],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
],
"port43":"whois.example.net",
"events":[
{
"eventAction":"registration",
"eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"eventAction":"last changed",
"eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor":"joe@example.com"
}
]
}
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 name
servers 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".
The nameserver object class accommodates both models and degrees of
variation in between.
The following is an example of a nameserver object.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "ns1.foo.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" : "http://example.net/nameserver/xxxx",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/nameserver/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"
}
]
}
Figure 18
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Figure 18 is an example of a nameserver object with all 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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
The following is an elided example of a nameserver with embedded
entities.
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
...
"entities" :
[
...
],
...
}
Figure 21
The nameserver object class can contain the following members:
o objectClassName - the string "nameserver"
o handle -- a string representing an registry unique identifier of
the nameserver
o ldhName -- a string containing the LDH name of the nameserver (see
Section 3)
o unicodeName -- a string containing a DNS Unicode name of the
nameserver (see Section 3)
o 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
o entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1.
o status - see Section 4.6
o remarks - see Section 4.3
o links - see Section 4.2
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
o port43 - see Section 4.7
o 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.).
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:
o objectClassName -- the string "domain"
o handle -- a string representing a registry unique identifier of
the domain object instance
o ldhName -- a string describing a domain name in LDH form as
described in Section 3
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
o unicodeName -- a string containing a domain name with U-labels as
described in Section 3
o 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 name of the IDN table of codepoints, such as
one listed with the IANA (see IDN tables [IANA_IDNTABLES]).
* variantNames -- an array of objects, with each object
containing an "ldhName" member and a "unicodeName" member (see
Section 3).
o nameservers -- an array of nameserver objects as defined by
Section 5.2
o secureDNS -- an object with the following members:
* zoneSigned -- 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 life time
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:
+ keyTag -- an integer as specified by the key tag field of a
DNS DS record as specified by RFC 4034 [RFC4034] in
presentation format
+ algorithm -- an integer as specified by the algorithm field
of a DNS DS record as described by RFC 4034 in presentation
format
+ digest -- a string as specified by the digest field of a DNS
DS record as specified by RFC 4034 in presentation format
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
+ digestType -- an integer as specified by the digest type
field of a DNS DS record as specified by RFC 4034 in
presentation format
+ events - see Section 4.5
+ links - see Section 4.2
* keyData - an array of objects, each with the following members:
+ flags -- an integer representing the flags field value in
the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation format
+ protocol - an integer representation of the protocol field
value of the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation format
+ publicKey - a string representation of the public key in the
DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation format
+ algorithm -- an integer as specified by the algorithm field
of a DNSKEY record as specified by RFC 4034 [RFC4034] in
presentation format
+ events - see Section 4.5
+ links - see Section 4.2
See Appendix D for background information on these objects.
o entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1.
o status - see Section 4.6
o publicIds - see Section 4.8
o remarks - see Section 4.3
o links - see Section 4.2
o port43 - see Section 4.7
o events - see Section 4.5
o 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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"nameservers" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns1.rir.example"
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns2.rir.example"
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
"delegationSigned": true,
"dsData":
[
{
"keyTag": 12345,
"algorithm": 3,
"digestType": 1,
"digest": "49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC"
}
]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value": "http://example.net/domain/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/domain/XXXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"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" },
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"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": "http://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://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",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"ipVersion" : "v6",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country" : "AU",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
"status" : [ "active" ]
}
}
Figure 23
The following is an example of a JSON domain object representing a
forward DNS delegation point that might be served by a DNR.
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example",
"variants" :
[
{
"relation" : [ "registered", "conjoined" ],
"variantNames" :
[
{
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-cka.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example"
},
{
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-fka.example",
"unicodeName" : "foeo.example"
}
]
},
{
"relation" : [ "unregistered", "registration restricted" ],
"idnTable": ".EXAMPLE Swedish",
"variantNames" :
[
{
"ldhName": "xn--fo-8ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example"
}
]
}
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
],
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"ENS_Auth ID",
"identifier":"1234567890"
}
],
"nameservers" :
[
{
"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" : "http://example.net/nameserver/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/nameserver/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
"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" : "http://example.net/nameserver/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/nameserver/XXXX",
"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,
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"delegationSigned": true,
"maxSigLife": 604800,
"keyData":
[
{
"flags": 257,
"protocol": 3,
"algorithm": 1,
"publicKey": "AQPJ////4Q==",
"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": "http://example.net/domain/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/domain/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",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
},
{
"eventAction" : "transfer",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
},
{
"eventAction" : "expiration",
"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"
]
],
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
["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" ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "http://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://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
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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-weirds-rdap-query]. 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::0",
"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.",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "http://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value" : "http://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel" : "up",
"href" : "http://example.net/ip/2001:C00::/23",
"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", {
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"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" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "http://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"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:
o objectClassName -- the string "ip network"
o handle -- a string representing an RIR unique identifier of the
network registration
o startAddress -- the starting IP address of the network, either
IPv4 or IPv6
o endAddress -- the ending IP address of the network, either IPv4 or
IPv6
o ipVersion -- a string signifying the IP protocol version of the
network: "v4" signifying an IPv4 network, "v6" signifying an IPv6
network
o name -- an identifier assigned to the network registration by the
registration holder
o type -- a string containing an RIR-specific classification of the
network
o country -- a string containing the two-character country code of
the network
o parentHandle -- a string containing an RIR-unique identifier of
the parent network of this network registration
o status -- an array of strings indicating the state of the IP
network
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
o entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1.
o remarks - see Section 4.3
o links - see Section 4.2
o port43 - see Section 4.7
o events - see Section 4.5
5.5. Autonomous System Number Entity 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-weirds-rdap-query]. There is no equivalent object class
for DNRs. The high level structure of the autnum object class
consists of information about the network registration and entities
related to the autnum registration (e.g. registrant information,
contacts, etc.), and is similar to the IP Network entity object
class.
The following is an example of a JSON object representing an autnum.
{
"objectClassName" : "autnum",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"startAutnum" : 10,
"endAutnum" : 15,
"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" : "http://example.net/autnum/xxxx",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://example.net/autnum/xxxx",
"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"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"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" : "http://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "http://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"
}
]
}
]
}
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Figure 27
The autonomous system number object class can contain the following
members:
o objectClassName -- the string "autnum"
o handle -- a string representing an RIR-unique identifier of the
autnum registration
o startAutnum -- a number representing the starting number [RFC5396]
in the block of autonomous system numbers
o endAutnum -- a number representing the ending number [RFC5396] in
the block of autonomous system numbers
o name -- an identifier assigned to the autnum registration by the
registration holder
o type -- a string containing an RIR-specific classification of the
autnum
o status -- an array of strings indicating the state of the autnum
o country -- a string containing the name of the 2 character country
code of the autnum
o entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1.
o remarks - see Section 4.3
o links - see Section 4.2
o port43 - see Section 4.7
o 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 an
error code number (corresponding to the HTTP response code) followed
by a string named "title" and an array of strings named
"description".
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
This is an example of the common response body.
{
"errorCode": 418,
"title": "Your beverage choice is not available",
"description":
[
"I know coffee has more ummppphhh.",
"Sorry, dude!"
]
}
Figure 28
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
This is an example of the common response body with and
rdapConformance and notices data structures:
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Beverage policy",
"description" :
[
"Beverages with caffeine for keeping horses awake."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "http://example.net/ip/192.0.2.0/24",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "http://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!"
]
}
Figure 29
7. Responding to Help Queries
The appropriate response to /help queries as defined by
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is to use the notices structure as
defined in Section 4.3.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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" : "http://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "http://www.example.com/auth_policy.html"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 30
8. Responding To Searches
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] 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.
The names of the arrays are as follows:
o for /domains searches, the array is "domainSearchResults"
o for /nameservers searches, the array is "nameserverSearchResults"
o for /entities searches, the array is "entitySearchResults"
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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",
...
}
]
}
search_response_example
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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
The following is an elided example of a search response that has been
truncated.
{
"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" : "http://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "http://www.example.com/search_policy.html"
}
]
}
],
"domainSearchResults" :
[
...
]
}
search_response_truncated_example
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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
The following is an elided example of an entity truncated data.
{
"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" : "http://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "http://www.example.com/data_policy.html"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 31
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. RDAP JSON Media Type Registration
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
6 of [RFC7159]
Interoperability considerations: There are no known
interoperability problems regarding this media format.
Published specification: [[ this document ]]
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
WEIRDS working group. The WEIRDS charter, information on the
WEIRDS mailing list, and other documents produced by the WEIRDS
working group can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
weirds/
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)
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
10.2. JSON Values Registry
This section requests that the IANA create a new category in the
protocol registries labeled "Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP)" (if it does not already exist), and within that category
establish 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 should contain 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 to be operated under the "Expert Review" policy
defined in [RFC5226].
Review of registrations into this registry by the designated
expert(s) should be narrowly judged on the following criteria:
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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
This section registers the following values into the RDAP JSON Values
Registry:
1.
* 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
2.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* Value: result set truncated due to excessive load
* Type: notice and remark type
* 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
3.
* 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
4.
* 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
5.
* Value: object truncated due to excessive load
* Type: notice and remark type
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* 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
6.
* Value: object truncated due to unexplainable reasons
* Type: notice and remark type
* 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
This section registers the following values into the RDAP JSON Values
Registry:
1.
* 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
2.
* Value: renew prohibited
* Type: status
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* Description: Renewal or reregistration of the object instance
is forbidden.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
3.
* Value: update prohibited
* Type: status
* Description: Updates to the object instance are forbidden.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
4.
* Value: transfer prohibited
* 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
5.
* 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
6.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* 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
7.
* 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
8.
* Value: removed
* 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
9.
* Value: obscured
* Type: status
* Description: Some of the information of the object instance
has been altered for the purposes of not readily revealing
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
the actual information of the object instance. This is most
commonly applied to entities.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
10.
* 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
11.
* 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
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
12.
* Value: inactive
* Type: status
* Description: The object instance is not in use. See
'active'.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
13.
* 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
14.
* 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
15.
* 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
16.
* Value: pending transfer
* Type: status
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* 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
17.
* 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
18.
* 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
This section registers the following values into the RDAP JSON Values
Registry:
1.
* Value: registration
* Type: event action
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* Description: The object instance was initially registered.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
2.
* Value: reregistration
* Type: event action
* Description: The object instance was registered subsequently
to initial registration.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
3.
* 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
4.
* 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
5.
* Value: deletion
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* 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
6.
* Value: reinstantiation
* Type: event action
* Description: The object instance was reregistered after having
been removed from the registry.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
7.
* Value: transfer
* Type: event action
* Description: The object instance was transferred from one
registrant to another.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
8.
* Value: locked
* Type: event action
* Description: The object instance was locked (see the 'locked'
status).
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
9.
* 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
This section registers the following values into the RDAP JSON Values
Registry:
1.
* Value: registrant
* Type: role
* 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
2.
* 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
3.
* Value: administrative
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* Type: role
* Description: The entity object instance is an administrative
contact for the registration.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
4.
* 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
5.
* 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
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
6.
* 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
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
7.
* 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
8.
* 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
9.
* 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
10.
* Value: notifications
* Type: role
* Description: An entity object instance designated to receive
notifications about association object instances.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
11.
* 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
This section registers the following values into the RDAP JSON Values
Registry:
1.
* Value: registered
* Type: domain variant relation
* Description: The variant names are registered in the registry.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
2.
* 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
3.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
* Value: registration restricted
* Type: domain variant relation
* Description: Registration of the variant names is restricted
to certain parties or within certain rules.
* Registrant Name: IESG
* Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
4.
* 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
5.
* 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. 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 6 of [RFC7159] to
prevent code injection.
Though not specific to JSON, RDAP implementers should be aware of the
security considerations specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] and
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
the security requirements and considerations in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec].
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 13.
12. Internationalization Considerations
12.1. Character Encoding
The default text encoding for JSON responses in RDAP is UTF-8
[RFC3629], and all servers and clients MUST support UTF-8.
12.2. URIs and IRIs
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] defines the use of URIs and IRIs in
RDAP.
12.3. Language Tags
Section 4.4 defines the use of language tags in the JSON responses
defined in this document.
12.4. Internationalized Domain Names
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.
13. 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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
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 applying those values to contacts and
registrants.
14. Contributing Authors and Acknowledgements
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, and Guangqing Deng, Steve Sheng and Francisco Arias, Ray
Bellis, and Frederico Neves.
Tom Harrison, Murray Kucherawy, Ed Lewis, Audric Schiltknecht, Naoki
Kambe, and Maarten Bosteels 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 draft.
The switch to and incorporation of jCard (JSON vCard) was performed
by Simon Perreault.
Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy chaired the IETF's WEIRDS working
group from which this document as been created.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of
Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, December 2008.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
[RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095,
January 2014.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-using-http-15 (work in progress), November 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol Query Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-16
(work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]
Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol", draft-ietf-weirds-
rdap-sec-11 (work in progress), November 2014.
[ISO.3166.1988]
International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
the representation of names of countries, 3rd edition",
ISO Standard 3166, August 1988.
15.2. Informative References
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.
[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910, May 2010.
[RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
August 2011.
[RFC6839] Hansen, T. and A. Melnikov, "Additional Media Type
Structured Syntax Suffixes", RFC 6839, January 2013.
[JSON_acendancy]
MacVittie, , "The Stealthy Ascendancy of JSON", 04 2011.
[IANA_IDNTABLES]
"IANA IDN Tables",
<http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables>.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
[JSON_performance_study]
Montana State University - Bozeman, Montana State
University - Bozeman, Montana State University - Bozeman,
and Montana State University - Bozeman, "Comparison of
JSON and XML Data Interchange Formats: A Case Study",
2009.
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",
[
["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",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
{ "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."
]
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Figure 32
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 33
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",
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
[
["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"],
"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":[
{
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"http://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"alternate",
"type":"text/html",
"href":"http://www.example.com"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 34
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:
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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
This is an example of an "events" array without the 'eventActor'.
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
Figure 35
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 36
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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
The following is an elided example of a domain object with an entity
as an event actor.
{
"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 37
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"],
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
["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",
[
"",
"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"
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
],
["geo", {
"type":"work"
}, "uri", "geo:46.772673,-71.282945"],
["key",
{ "type":"work" },
"uri", "http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc"
],
["tz", {},
"utc-offset", "-05:00"],
["url", { "type":"home" },
"uri", "http://example.org"]
]
]
}
Figure 38
The arrays in Figure 38 with the first member of "adr" represent
postal addresses. In the first example, the postal address is given
as a 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.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Note that in this example the structured address array is still given
but that each string is an empty string.
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 digital signing of
resource records. To enable DNSSEC, the zone is signed by one or
more private keys and the signatures 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 Delegation Signer (DS) records and
signed by the parent's private key (RRSIG DS record), "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 serves 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 a large percentage of clients
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
operate within browsers and other platforms where full-blown XML
stacks are not readily available and where JSON is a better fit.
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_acendancy]). Studies
have also found that JSON is generally less bulky and consequently
faster to parse (see [JSON_performance_study]).
Appendix F. Changelog
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section prior to publication.]
Initial -00 Adopted as working group document 2012-September-18.
-01
Minor spelling corrections. Changed "Registry Data" to
"Registration Data" for the sake of consistency.
Transitioned to RFC 5988 links and relationship types from our
own custom "uris" structure.
Some examples had 'status' as a string. Those have been
corrected as 'status' is always an array of strings.
Domain variants can now have a multi-valued relationship with
domain registrations.
"names" in the entity object class was changed to
"entityNames".
Some IP address examples change to IPv6.
Change phone number examples and added reference to E.164.
Added section on motivations for using JSON.
Added error response body section.
Added JSON naming section.
Added common data structures section.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Added the IANA Considerations section and the media type
registration.
Added 'lang' name/value.
Added internationalization considerations section.
-02
Removed level from media type registration.
Textual changes as given by Ed Lewis.
Fixed object class linking example noted by Francisco Obispo
Fixed a lot of other examples called out by Alex Sergeyev
Added a note that JSON names are case sensitive
Added 'status' to IP networks as suggested by Alex Sergeyev
-03
Added jCard verbiage and examples and deleted overlapping
contact information and the appendix on postal addresses
Removed the IANA considerations as they have been moved to
another document
Changed the remarks structure to be like notices
Reordering and rewording some of the sections so they flow
better
Added note about object class "self" links
Changed ipAddresses in nameserver object class to separate out
v6 from v4
Changed IP network version identifier from integer to string to
be more consistent with ipAddresses identifier in nameserver
object classes
Changed DNS names to LDH names and Unicode names
Modified the definition of 'conjoined' variant relationship so
it was circular
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Added 'proxy', 'private', 'redacted', and 'obscured' status
values (most useful for entities).
Added a privacy considerations section
Added a security considerations section
Added 'reseller' and 'sponsor' to the list of entity roles
Added the 'events' common data structure
Added 'asEventActor' to entities
Added appendix on event modeling
Removed the subclasses/superclassing between RIRs/DNRs for
entity and domain object classes
Change suggested status/relation/etc values to be case/spacing
consistent
Normalized some of the definitions of object class members
Modifying the JSON signaling section to reference the guidance
in draft-ietf-weirds-using-http
Changed the text regarding the process of unknown JSON
attributes
-04
'description' removed from IP network and autnum because it is
redundant with the remarks structure.
Added 'entities' array to nameservers.
Added 'status' to autnum.
Added 'publicIds' to entity and domain.
Added embedded entities to the entity object class.
Added 'idnTable' to variants objects in domain object class.
Changed the numbers for startNum and endNum in autnum to
numbers instead of strings.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Added an example for error response with full rdapConformance
and notices.
Added a section discussing help.
Changed entities to use vcardArray and changed the examples to
be current with jCard.
Added a section on structured vs unstructured addresses.
Added associated to the list of status values.
Added a secure DNS section changed the 'delegationKey' object
into the 'secureDNS' object.
Changed the suggested values to an IANA registry.
Added 'proxy' to the list of entity roles.
-05
Added IANA registration for RDAP JSON Media Type
Added 'associated' status type. This was done earlier but got
dropped during a reorganization of the document.
Added the following status types:
active
inactive
locked
pending create
pending renew
pending update
pending transfer
pending delete
renew prohibited
Added the following event actions:
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
locked
unlocked
Added the following roles:
notifications
noc
Changed the 'tech' role to 'technical'
Many document reference changes.
Many examples have been fixed.
Added links to dsData and keyData.
Changed flags and protocols to integers in keyData.
Added 'entities' to the specified list for autnum.
Added SHOULD/SHOULD NOT language about using "type":
"application/rdap+json" for self links.
Added 'port43' to ip networks and autnum.
-06
Fix search response example.
Change the returned search arrays to 'domainSearchResults',
'entitySearchResults', and 'nameserverSearchResults'.
-07
'nameservers' in domain object class was changed to
'nameServers' as in the example (note the camel case)
fixed some example per email from James Mitchell
fixed an example per email from Simon Perreault
Added "network" to domain object class.
Added networks and autnums to the entity object class.
Created a section for "resultsTruncated".
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
-08
Added typed remarks and notices, removed "resultTruncated" in
favor of them.
Added "objectClassName".
Changed JSON reference to RFC 7159.
Removed unused references to RFC 0791, RFC 2616, RFC 4343, RFC
5322.
-09
Fixed numerous examples.
Reference to jCard updated.
Text regarding JSON vCards has been changed to jCards.
JSON naming rules do not apply to jCards.
"nameserver" was made consistently all lower case.
Links contained a "title" array, but it is now just a string
per RFC 5988.
Removed the term RESTful from the first section so it wouldn't
have to be expanded.
Added reference to RFC 2119 and noted that the uppercase form
is what this document uses.
Added text explaining why SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs are to be
followed.
"port43" can now be either an domain name or IP address.
"objectClassName" is now required.
Numerous changes in prose for better readability.
Updated the security considerations section to point to using-
http and rdap-sec.
-10
Addressing many AD comments.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft RDAP JSON RESPONSES December 2014
Changed IANA registrations to IESG.
'href' is now the only MUST in the a link.
-11
Changes to address IETF Last Call comments.
-12
Changes to address IESG comments.
-13
Changes to address Alyssa's DISCUSS.
'redacted' status changed to 'removed'
-14
Text changes regarding can contain vs has members of for object
classes.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew Lee Newton
American Registry for Internet Numbers
3635 Concorde Parkway
Chantilly, VA 20151
US
Email: andy@arin.net
URI: http://www.arin.net
Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
US
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires July 4, 2015 [Page 91]
