Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query
Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck
Expires: June 26, 2015 Verisign Labs
December 23, 2014
Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-18
Abstract
This document describes uniform patterns to construct HTTP URLs that
may be used to retrieve registration information from registries
(including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name
Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns. These
uniform patterns define the query syntax for the Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at 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 June 26, 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 June 26, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 6
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 8
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Query Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Partial String Searching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Associated Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Character Encoding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations
IDN: Internationalized Domain Name
IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications, a protocol
for the handling of IDNs.
DNR: Domain Name Registry
NFC: Unicode Normalization Form C ([Unicode-UAX15])
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
NFKC: Unicode Normalization Form KC ([Unicode-UAX15])
RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol
REST: Representational State Transfer. The term was first
described in a doctoral dissertation [REST].
RESTful: An adjective that describes a service using HTTP and the
principles of REST.
RIR: Regional Internet Registry
2. Introduction
This document describes a specification for querying registration
data using a RESTful web service and uniform query patterns. The
service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
[RFC7230] and the conventions described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. These uniform patterns define the
query syntax for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP).
The protocol described in this specification is intended to address
deficiencies with the WHOIS protocol [RFC3912] that have been
identified over time, including:
o Lack of standardized command structures,
o lack of standardized output and error structures,
o lack of support for internationalization and localization, and
o lack of support for user identification, authentication, and
access control.
The patterns described in this document purposefully do not encompass
all of the methods employed in the WHOIS and other RESTful web
services of all of the RIRs and DNRs. The intent of the patterns
described here are to enable queries of:
o networks by IP address,
o autonomous system numbers by number,
o reverse DNS meta-data by domain,
o name servers by name,
o registrars by name, and
o entities (such as contacts) by identifier.
Server implementations are free to support only a subset of these
features depending on local requirements. Servers MUST return an
HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC7231] response to inform clients of
unsupported query types. It is also envisioned that each registry
will continue to maintain WHOIS and/or other RESTful web services
specific to their needs and those of their constituencies, and the
information retrieved through the patterns described here may
reference such services.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for
additional query types. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is
described in Section 5 to accommodate custom extensions that will not
interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns
defined in future IETF standards.
WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore URL
[RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to
the HTTP [RFC7231] GET and HEAD methods.
This document does not describe the results or entities returned from
issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET. The specification of
these entities is described in [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
Additionally, resource management, provisioning and update functions
are out of scope for this document. Registries have various and
divergent methods covering these functions, and it is unlikely a
uniform approach is needed for interoperability.
HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients and for
clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization schemes may
be built) so such mechanisms are not described in this document.
Policy, provisioning, and processing of authentication and
authorization are out-of-scope for this document as deployments will
have to make choices based on local criteria. Supported
authentication mechanisms are described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec].
3. Path Segment Specification
The base URLs used to construct RDAP queries are maintained in an
IANA registry described in [I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]. Queries are
formed by retrieving an appropriate base URL from the registry and
appending a path segment specified in either Section 3.1 or
Section 3.2. Generally, a registry or other service provider will
provide a base URL that identifies the protocol, host and port, and
this will be used as a base URL that the complete URL is resolved
against, as per Section 5 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. For example, if the
base URL is "https://example.com/rdap/", all RDAP query URLs will
begin with "https://example.com/rdap/".
The bootstrap registry does not contain information for query objects
that are not part of a global namespace, including entities and help.
A base URL for an associated object is required to construct a
complete query.
For entities, a base URL is retrieved for the service (domain,
address, etc.) associated with a given entity. The query URL is
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
constructed by concatenating the base URL to the entity path segment
specified in either Section 3.1.5 or Section 3.2.3.
For help, a base URL is retrieved for any service (domain, address,
etc.) for which additional information is required. The query URL is
constructed by concatenating the base URL to the help path segment
specified in Section 3.1.6.
3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification
A simple lookup to determine if an object exists (or not) without
returning RDAP-encoded results can be performed using the HTTP HEAD
method as described in Section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are:
o 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced
using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.
o 'autnum': Used to identify autonomous system registrations and
associated data referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system
number.
o 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR)
information and associated data referenced using a fully-qualified
domain name.
o 'nameserver': Used to identify a name server information query
using a host name.
o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query using a
string identifier.
3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification
Syntax: ip/<IP address> or ip/<CIDR prefix>/<CIDR length>
Queries for information about IP networks are of the form /ip/XXX/...
or /ip/XXX/YY/... where the path segment following 'ip' is either an
IPv4 dotted-decimal or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e. XXX) or an IPv4
or IPv6 CIDR [RFC4632] notation address block (i.e. XXX/YY).
Semantically, the simpler form using the address can be thought of as
a CIDR block with a bitmask length of 32 for IPv4 and a bitmask
length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall
within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy of networks, therefore
this query targets the "most-specific" or smallest IP network which
completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of IP networks.
The IPv4 and IPv6 address formats supported in this query are
described in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986], as IPv4address and
IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format
[RFC4291] can be used. This includes IPv6 addresses written using
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
with or without compressed zeros, and IPv6 addresses containing
embedded IPv4 addresses. The rules to write a text representation of
an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are RECOMMENDED. However, the zone_id
[RFC4007] is not appropriate in this context and therefore the
corresponding syntax extension in RFC 6874 [RFC6874] MUST NOT be
used, and servers are to ignore it if possible.
For example, the following URL would be used to find information for
the most specific network containing 192.0.2.0:
https://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0
The following URL would be used to find information for the most
specific network containing 192.0.2.0/24:
https://example.com/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0/24
The following URL would be used to find information for the most
specific network containing 2001:db8::0:
https://example.com/rdap/ip/2001:db8::0
3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification
Syntax: autnum/<autonomous system number>
Queries for information regarding autonomous system number
registrations are of the form /autnum/XXX/... where XXX is an AS
Plain autonomous system number [RFC5396]. In some registries,
registration of autonomous system numbers is done on an individual
number basis, while other registries may register blocks of
autonomous system numbers. The semantics of this query are such that
if a number falls within a range of registered blocks, the target of
the query is the block registration, and that individual number
registrations are considered a block of numbers with a size of 1.
For example, the following URL would be used to find information
describing autonomous system number 12 (a number within a range of
registered blocks):
https://example.com/rdap/autnum/12
The following URL would be used to find information describing 4-byte
autonomous system number 65538:
https://example.com/rdap/autnum/65538
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification
Syntax: domain/<domain name>
Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX/...,
where XXXX is a fully-qualified (relative to the root) domain name
(as specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123]) in either
the in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified
domain name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs).
Internationalized domain names represented in either A-label or
U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain names. See
Section 6.1 for information on character encoding for the U-label
format.
IDNs SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels;
that is, internationalized labels in an IDN SHOULD be either all
A-labels or all U-labels. It is possible for an RDAP client to
assemble a query string from multiple independent data sources. Such
a client might not be able to perform conversions between A-labels
and U-labels. An RDAP server that receives a query string with a
mixture of A-labels and U-labels MAY convert all the U-labels to
A-labels, perform IDNA processing, and proceed with exact-match
lookup. In such cases, the response to be returned to the query
source may not match the input from the query source. Alternatively,
the server MAY refuse to process the query.
The server MAY perform the match using either the A-label or U-label
form. Using one consistent form for matching every label is likely
to be more reliable.
The following URL would be used to find information describing the
zone serving the network 192.0.2/24:
https://example.com/rdap/domain/2.0.192.in-addr.arpa
The following URL would be used to find information describing the
zone serving the network 2001:db8:1::/48:
https://example.com/rdap/domain/1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
The following URL would be used to find information for the
blah.example.com domain name:
https://example.com/rdap/domain/blah.example.com
The following URL would be used to find information for the
xn--fo-5ja.example IDN:
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
https://example.com/rdap/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example
3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification
Syntax: nameserver/<name server name>
The <name server name> parameter represents a fully qualified host
name as specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123].
Internationalized names represented in either A-label or U-label
format [RFC5890] are also valid name server names. IDN processing
for name server names uses the domain name processing instructions
specified in Section 3.1.3. See Section 6.1 for information on
character encoding for the U-label format.
The following URL would be used to find information for the
ns1.example.com name server:
https://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.example.com
The following URL would be used to find information for the
ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example name server:
https://example.com/rdap/nameserver/ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example
3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification
Syntax: entity/<handle>
The <handle> parameter represents an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the
registration provider. For example, for some DNRs contact
identifiers are specified in RFC 5730 [RFC5730] and RFC 5733
[RFC5733].
The following URL would be used to find information for the entity
associated with handle XXXX:
https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX
3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification
Syntax: help
The help path segment can be used to request helpful information
(command syntax, terms of service, privacy policy, rate limiting
policy, supported authentication methods, supported extensions,
technical support contact, etc.) from an RDAP server. The response
to "help" should provide basic information that a client needs to
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
successfully use the service. The following URL would be used to
return "help" information:
https://example.com/rdap/help
3.2. Search Path Segment Specification
Pattern matching semantics are described in Section 4.1. The
resource type path segments for search are:
o 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using
a pattern to match a fully-qualified domain name.
o 'nameservers': Used to identify a name server information search
using a pattern to match a host name.
o 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a
pattern to match a string identifier.
RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the
plural form of the object being searched for and an HTTP query
string. The HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the
question mark character ('?', ASCII value 0x003F), the JSON object
value associated with the object being searched for, the equal sign
character ('=', ASCII value 0x003D), and the search pattern. Search
pattern query processing is described more fully in Section 4. For
the domain, nameserver, and entity objects described in this document
the plural object forms are "domains", "nameservers", and "entities".
Detailed results can be retrieved using the HTTP GET method and the
path segments specified here.
3.2.1. Domain Search
Syntax: domains?name=<domain search pattern>
Syntax: domains?nsLdhName=<domain search pattern>
Syntax: domains?nsIp=<domain search pattern>
Searches for domain information by name are specified using this
form:
domains?name=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing a domain name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server
operator of a DNR. The following URL would be used to find DNR
information for domain names matching the "example*.com" pattern:
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=example*.com
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in U-label format [RFC5890] can
also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these
names are of the form /domains?name=XXXX, where XXXX is a search
pattern representing a domain name in U-label format [RFC5890]. See
Section 6.1 for information on character encoding for the U-label
format.
Searches for domain information by name server name are specified
using this form:
domains?nsLdhName=YYYY
YYYY is a search pattern representing a host name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server
operator of a DNR. The following URL would be used to search for
domains delegated to name servers matching the "ns1.example*.com"
pattern:
https://example.com/rdap/domains?nsLdhName=ns1.example*.com
Searches for domain information by name server IP address are
specified using this form:
domains?nsIp=ZZZZ
ZZZZ is a search pattern representing an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6
[RFC5952] address. The following URL would be used to search for
domains that have been delegated to name servers that resolve to the
"192.0.2.0" address:
https://example.com/rdap/domains?nsIp=192.0.2.0
3.2.2. Name Server Search
Syntax: nameservers?name=<name server search pattern>
Syntax: nameservers?ip=<name server search pattern>
Searches for name server information by name server name are
specified using this form:
nameservers?name=XXXX
XXXX is a search pattern representing a host name in "letters,
digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone administered by the server
operator of a DNR. The following URL would be used to find DNR
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
information for name server names matching the "ns1.example*.com"
pattern:
https://example.com/rdap/nameservers?name=ns1.example*.com
Internationalized name server names in U-label format [RFC5890] can
also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these
names are of the form /nameservers?name=XXXX, where XXXX is a search
pattern representing a name server name in U-label format [RFC5890].
See Section 6.1 for information on character encoding for the U-label
format.
Searches for name server information by name server IP address are
specified using this form:
nameservers?ip=YYYY
YYYY is a search pattern representing an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6
[RFC5952] address. The following URL would be used to search for
name server names that resolve to the "192.0.2.0" address:
https://example.com/rdap/nameservers?ip=192.0.2.0
3.2.3. Entity Search
Syntax: entities?fn=<entity name search pattern>
Syntax: entities?handle=<entity handle search pattern>
Searches for entity information by name are specified using this
form:
entities?fn=XXXX
where XXXX is a search pattern representing the "FN" property of an
entity (such as a contact, registrant, or registrar) name as
specified in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. The
following URL would be used to find information for entity names
matching the "Bobby Joe*" pattern:
https://example.com/rdap/entities?fn=Bobby%20Joe*
Searches for entity information by handle are specified using this
form:
entities?handle=XXXX
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
where XXXX is a search pattern representing an entity (such as a
contact, registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is
specific to the registration provider. The following URL would be
used to find information for entity handles matching the "CID-40*"
pattern:
https://example.com/rdap/entities?handle=CID-40*
URLs MUST be properly encoded according to the rules of [RFC3986].
In the example above, "Bobby Joe*" is encoded to "Bobby%20Joe*".
4. Query Processing
Servers indicate the success or failure of query processing by
returning an appropriate HTTP response code to the client. Response
codes not specifically identified in this document are described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
4.1. Partial String Searching
Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', ASCII value 0x002A)
character to match zero or more trailing characters. A character
string representing multiple domain name labels MAY be concatenated
to the end of the search pattern to limit the scope of the search.
For example, the search pattern "exam*" will match "example.com" and
"example.net". The search pattern "exam*.com" will match
"example.com". If an asterisk appears in a search string, any label
that contains the non-asterisk characters in sequence plus zero or
more characters in sequence in place of the asterisk would match.
Additional pattern matching processing is beyond the scope of this
specification.
If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request
because it does not support a particular style of partial match
searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 (Unprocessable Entity)
[RFC4918] response. When returning a 422 error, the server MAY also
return an error response body as specified in Section 7 of
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if the requested media type is one
that is specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Partial matching is not feasible across combinations of Unicode
characters because Unicode characters can be combined with each
other. Servers SHOULD NOT partially match combinations of Unicode
characters where a legal combination is possible. It should be
noted, though, that it may not always be possible to detect cases
where a character could have been combined with another character,
but was not, because characters can be combined in many different
ways.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
Clients should avoid submitting a partial match search of Unicode
characters where a Unicode character may be legally combined with
another Unicode character or characters. Partial match searches with
incomplete combinations of characters where a character must be
combined with another character or characters are invalid. Partial
match searches with characters that may be combined with another
character or characters are to be considered non-combined characters
(that is, if character x may be combined with character y but
character y is not submitted in the search string then character x is
a complete character and no combinations of character x are to be
searched).
4.2. Associated Records
Conceptually, any query-matching record in a server's database might
be a member of a set of related records, related in some fashion as
defined by the server - for example, variants of an IDN. The entire
set ought to be considered as candidates for inclusion when
constructing the response. However, the construction of the final
response needs to be mindful of privacy and other data-releasing
policies when assembling the RDAP response set.
Note too that due to the nature of searching, there may be a list of
query-matching records. Each one of those is subject to being a
member of a set as described in the previous paragraph. What is
ultimately returned in a response will be the union of all the sets
that has been filtered by whatever policies are in place.
Note that this model includes arrangements for associated names,
including those that are linked by policy mechanisms and names bound
together for some other purposes. Note also that returning
information that was not explicitly selected by an exact-match
lookup, including additional names that match a relatively fuzzy
search as well as lists of names that are linked together, may cause
privacy issues.
Note that there might not be a single, static information return
policy that applies to all clients equally. Client identity and
associated authorizations can be a relevant factor in determining how
broad the response set will be for any particular query.
5. Extensibility
This document describes path segment specifications for a limited
number of objects commonly registered in both RIRs and DNRs. It does
not attempt to describe path segments for all of the objects
registered in all registries. Custom path segments can be created
for objects not specified here using the process described in
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
Section 6 of "HTTP usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP)" [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http].
Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a
unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For
example, a custom entity path segment could be created by prefixing
"entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity". Servers MUST
return an appropriate failure status code for a request with an
unrecognized path segment.
6. Internationalization Considerations
There is value in supporting the ability to submit either a U-label
(Unicode form of an IDN label) or an A-label (ASCII form of an IDN
label) as a query argument to an RDAP service. Clients capable of
processing non-ASCII characters may prefer a U-label since this is
more visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but
clients using programmatic interfaces might find it easier to submit
and display A-labels if they are unable to input U-labels with their
keyboard configuration. Both query forms are acceptable.
Internationalized domain and name server names can contain character
variants and variant labels as described in RFC 4290 [RFC4290].
Clients that support queries for internationalized domain and name
server names MUST accept service provider responses that describe
variants as specified in "JSON Responses for the Registration Data
Access Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
6.1. Character Encoding Considerations
Servers can expect to receive search patterns from clients that
contain character strings encoded in different forms supported by
HTTP. It is entirely possible to apply filters and normalization
rules to search patterns prior to making character comparisons, but
this type of processing is more typically needed to determine the
validity of registered strings than to match patterns.
An RDAP client submitting a query string containing non-US-ASCII
characters converts such strings into Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. It
then performs any local case mapping deemed necessary. Strings are
normalized using Normalization Form C (NFC, [Unicode-UAX15]); note
that clients might not be able to do this reliably. UTF-8 encoded
strings are then appropriately percent-encoded [RFC3986] in the query
URL.
After parsing any percent-encoding, an RDAP server treats each query
string as Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. If a string is not valid UTF-8,
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
the server can immediately stop processing the query and return an
HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response.
When processing queries, there is a difference in handling DNS names,
including those including putative U-labels, and everything else.
DNS names are treated according to the DNS matching rules as
described in Section 3.1 of RFC 1035 [RFC1035] for NR-LDH labels and
the matching rules described in Section 5.4 of RFC 5891 [RFC5891] for
U-labels. Matching of DNS names proceeds one label at a time,
because it is possible for a combination of U-labels and NR-LDH
labels to be found in a single domain or host name. The
determination of whether a label is a U-label or an NR-LDH label is
based on whether the label contains any characters outside of the US-
ASCII letters, digits, or hyphen (the so-called LDH rule).
For everything else, servers map fullwidth and halfwidth characters
to their decomposition equivalents. Servers convert strings to the
same coded character set of the target data that is to be looked up
or searched and each string is normalized using the same
normalization that was used on the target data. In general, storage
of strings as Unicode is RECOMMENDED. For the purposes of
comparison, Normalization Form KC (NFKC, [Unicode-UAX15]) with case
folding is used to maximize predictability and the number of matches.
Note the use of case-folded NFKC as opposed to NFC in this case.
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not specify any IANA actions.
8. Security Considerations
Security services for the operations specified in this document are
described in "Security Services for the Registration Data Access
Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec].
Search functionality typically requires more server resources (such
as memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to basic
lookup functionality. This increases the risk of server resource
exhaustion and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. This risk
can be mitigated by developing and implementing controls to restrict
search functionality to identified and authorized clients. If those
clients behave badly, their search privileges can be suspended or
revoked. Rate limiting as described in Section 5.5 of "HTTP usage in
the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] can also be used to control the rate of
received search requests. Server operators can also reduce their
risk by restricting the amount of information returned in response to
a search request.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
Search functionality also increases the privacy risk of disclosing
object relationships that might not otherwise be obvious. For
example, a search that returns IDN variants [RFC6927] that do not
explicitly match a client-provided search pattern can disclose
information about registered domain names that might not be otherwise
available. Implementers need to consider the policy and privacy
implications of returning information that was not explicitly
requested.
Note that there might not be a single, static information return
policy that applies to all clients equally. Client identity and
associated authorizations can be a relevant factor in determining how
broad the response set will be for any particular query.
9. Acknowledgements
This document is derived from original work on RIR query formats
developed by Byron J. Ellacott of APNIC, Arturo L. Servin of
LACNIC, Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN.
Additionally, this document incorporates DNR query formats originally
described by Francisco Arias and Steve Sheng of ICANN and Scott
Hollenbeck of Verisign Labs.
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to this document: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet,
Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Behnam Esfahbod, John Klensin,
Edward Lewis, John Levine, Mark Nottingham, and Andrew Sullivan.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-weirds-bootstrap]
Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-11 (work in
progress), December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-json-response-13 (work in progress), December 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-12 (work in progress), December 2014.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format 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.
[RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet
host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC1166] Kirkpatrick, S., Stahl, M., and M. Recker, "Internet
numbers", RFC 1166, July 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC4918] Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007.
[RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of
Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, December 2008.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.
[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, August 2009.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
2014.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
[Unicode-UAX15]
The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
Unicode Normalization Forms", September 2013,
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>.
10.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of California, Irvine, 2000,
<http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004.
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
March 2005.
[RFC4290] Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290, December
2005.
[RFC6874] Carpenter, B., Cheshire, S., and R. Hinden, "Representing
IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
Resource Identifiers", RFC 6874, February 2013.
[RFC6927] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Variants in Second-Level Names
Registered in Top-Level Domains", RFC 6927, May 2013.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
Appendix A. Change Log
Initial -00: Adopted as working group document.
-01: Added "Conventions Used in This Document" section. Added
normative reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec and some
wrapping text in the Security Considerations section.
-02: Removed "unified" from the title. Rewrote the last paragraph
of section 2. Edited the first paragraph of section 3 to more
clearly note that only one path segment is provided. Added
"bitmask" to "length" in section 3.1. Changed "lowest IP network"
to "smallest IP network" in section 3.1. Added "asplain" to the
description of autonomous system numbers in section 3.2. Minor
change from "semantics is" to "semantics are" in section 3.2.
Changed the last sentence in section 4 to more clearly specify
error response behavior. Added acknowledgements. Added a
paragraph in the introduction regarding future IETF standards and
extensibility.
-03: Changed 'query' to 'lookup' in document title to better
describe the 'exact match lookup' purpose of this document.
Included a multitude of minor additions and clarifications
provided by Marc Blanchet and Jean-Philippe Dionne. Modified the
domain and name server sections to include support for IDN
U-labels.
-04: Updated the domain and name server sections to use .example IDN
U-labels. Added text to note that mixed IDN labels SHOULD NOT be
used. Fixed broken sentences in Section 6.
-05: Added "help" path segment.
-06: Added search text and removed or edited old search text.
-07: Fixed query parameter typo by replacing "/?" with "?". Changed
"asplain" to "AS Plain". Added entity search by handle.
Corrected section references. Updated IDN search text.
-08: Revised URI formats and added IANA instructions to create a
registry entry for the "rdap" well-known prefix. Revised search
processing text and added search privacy consideration.
Synchronized examples with response draft.
-09: More search processing and URI prefix updates. Updated fully-
qualified domain name reference.
-10: Added name server search by IP address.
-11: Replaced reference to RFC 4627 with reference to RFC 7159.
Replaced .well-known with bootstrap-defined prefix. Replaced
references to RFC 2616 with references to RFC 7231 and draft-ietf-
httpbis-http2, adding a note to make it clear that 2616 is an
acceptable reference if http2 isn't ready when needed.
-12: IDN label processing clarification. Added domain search by
name server name and name server IP address. Minor text editing
for consistency in the search sections. Replaced reference to
draft-ietf-httpbis-http2 with a reference to RFC 7230 and removed
reference note.
Newton & Hollenbeck Expires June 26, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RDAP Query Format December 2014
-13: Added HTTP HEAD reference in Section 3.2.
-14: Address WG last call comments.
-15: Address AD review comments.
-16: Address IETF last call comments.
-17: Address IESG review comments.
-18: One more IESG review comment regarding asterisk pattern
matching.
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 June 26, 2015 [Page 20]
