idnits 2.17.1 draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC7484, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (August 11, 2020) is 1344 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7234 (Obsoleted by RFC 9111) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7482 (Obsoleted by RFC 9082) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7483 (Obsoleted by RFC 9083) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Blanchet 3 Internet-Draft Viagenie 4 Obsoletes: 7484 (if approved) August 11, 2020 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: February 12, 2021 8 Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service 9 draft-blanchet-regext-rfc7484bis-00 11 Abstract 13 This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data 14 Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for 15 a requested scope, such as domain names, IP addresses, or Autonomous 16 System numbers. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 12, 2021. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Structure of the RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries . . . . . 3 55 4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space . . . . . . 5 56 5. Bootstrap Service Registries for Internet Numbers . . . . . . 6 57 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space . . . . 6 58 5.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space . . . . 7 59 5.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space . . . . . 8 60 6. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 7. Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values . . . . . . . . . . . 10 62 8. Deployment and Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . 10 63 9. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 10. Formal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 65 10.1. Imported JSON Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 10.2. Registry Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 12.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space . . . 14 70 12.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space . . . 14 71 12.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space . . . . . 14 72 12.4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space . . . . 14 73 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 74 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 75 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 76 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 77 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 1. Introduction 81 Querying and retrieving registration data from registries are defined 82 in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) [RFC7480] [RFC7482] 83 [RFC7483]. These documents do not specify where to send the queries. 84 This document specifies a method to find which server is 85 authoritative to answer queries for the requested scope. 87 Top-Level Domains (TLDs), Autonomous System (AS) numbers, and network 88 blocks are delegated by IANA to Internet registries such as TLD 89 registries and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) that then issue 90 further delegations and maintain information about them. Thus, the 91 bootstrap information needed by RDAP clients is best generated from 92 data and processes already maintained by IANA; the relevant 93 registries already exist at [ipv4reg], [ipv6reg], [asreg], and 94 [domainreg]. 96 Per this document, IANA has created new registries based on a JSON 97 format specified in this document, herein named RDAP Bootstrap 98 Service Registries. These new registries are based on the existing 99 entries of the above mentioned registries. An RDAP client fetches 100 the RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries, extracts the data, and then 101 performs a match with the query data to find the authoritative 102 registration data server and appropriate query base URL. 104 2. Conventions Used in This Document 106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 107 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 108 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 110 3. Structure of the RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries 112 The RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries, as specified in Section 12 113 below, have been made available as JSON [RFC7159] objects, which can 114 be retrieved via HTTP from locations specified by IANA. The JSON 115 object for each registry contains a series of members containing 116 metadata about the registry such as a version identifier, a timestamp 117 of the publication date of the registry, and a description. 118 Additionally, a "services" member contains the registry items 119 themselves, as an array. Each item of the array contains a second- 120 level array, with two elements, each of them being a third-level 121 array. 123 Each element of the Services Array is a second-level array with two 124 elements: in order, an Entry Array and a Service URL Array. 126 The Entry Array contains all entries that have the same set of base 127 RDAP URLs. The Service URL Array contains the list of base RDAP URLs 128 usable for the entries found in the Entry Array. Elements within 129 these two arrays are not sorted in any way. 131 An example structure of the JSON output of a RDAP Bootstrap Service 132 Registry is illustrated: 134 { 135 "version": "1.0", 136 "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ", 137 "description": "Some text", 138 "services": [ 139 [ 140 ["entry1", "entry2", "entry3"], 141 [ 142 "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/", 143 "http://registry.example.com/myrdap/" 144 ] 145 ], 146 [ 147 ["entry4"], 148 [ 149 "http://example.org/" 150 ] 151 ] 152 ] 153 } 155 The formal syntax is described in Section 10. 157 The "version" corresponds to the format version of the registry. 158 This specification defines version "1.0". 160 The syntax of the "publication" value conforms to the Internet date/ 161 time format [RFC3339]. The value is the latest update date of the 162 registry by IANA. 164 The optional "description" string can contain a comment regarding the 165 content of the bootstrap object. 167 Per [RFC7258], in each array of base RDAP URLs, the secure versions 168 of the transport protocol SHOULD be preferred and tried first. For 169 example, if the base RDAP URLs array contains both HTTPS and HTTP 170 URLs, the bootstrap client SHOULD try the HTTPS version first. 172 All RDAP endpoints referenced by the URLs in the array MUST return 173 identical responses for the same RDAP query. 175 Base RDAP URLs MUST have a trailing "/" character because they are 176 concatenated to the various segments defined in [RFC7482]. 178 JSON names MUST follow the format recommendations of [RFC7480]. Any 179 unrecognized JSON object properties or values MUST be ignored by 180 implementations. 182 Internationalized Domain Name labels used as entries or base RDAP 183 URLs in the registries defined in this document MUST be only 184 represented using their A-label form as defined in [RFC5890]. 186 All Domain Name labels used as entries or base RDAP URLs in the 187 registries defined in this document MUST be only represented in 188 lowercase. 190 4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space 192 The JSON output of this registry contains domain label entries 193 attached to the root, grouped by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this 194 example. 196 { 197 "version": "1.0", 198 "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ", 199 "description": "Some text", 200 "services": [ 201 [ 202 ["net", "com"], 203 [ 204 "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/" 205 ] 206 ], 207 [ 208 ["org", "mytld"], 209 [ 210 "http://example.org/" 211 ] 212 ], 213 [ 214 ["xn--zckzah"], 215 [ 216 "https://example.net/rdap/xn--zckzah/", 217 "http://example.net/rdap/xn--zckzah/" 218 ] 219 ] 220 ] 221 } 223 The domain name's authoritative registration data service is found by 224 doing the label-wise longest match of the target domain name with the 225 domain values in the Entry Arrays in the IANA Bootstrap Service 226 Registry for Domain Name Space. The match is done per label, from 227 right to left. If the longest match results in multiple entries, 228 then those entries are considered equivalent. The values contained 229 in the Service URL Array of the matching second-level array are the 230 valid base RDAP URLs as described in [RFC7482]. 232 For example, a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches the com 233 entry in one of the arrays of the registry. The base RDAP URL for 234 this query is then taken from the second element of the array, which 235 is an array of base RDAP URLs valid for this entry. The client 236 chooses one of the base URLs from this array; in this example, it 237 chooses the only one available, "https://registry.example.com/ 238 myrdap/". The segment specified in [RFC7482] is then appended to the 239 base URL to complete the query. The complete query is then 240 "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/domain/a.b.example.com". 242 If a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches both com and 243 example.com entries in the registry, then the longest match applies 244 and the example.com entry is used by the client. 246 If the registry contains entries such as com and goodexample.com, 247 then a domain RDAP query for example.com only matches the com entry 248 because matching is done on a per-label basis. 250 The entry for the root of the domain name space is specified as "". 252 5. Bootstrap Service Registries for Internet Numbers 254 This section discusses IPv4 and IPv6 address space and Autonomous 255 System numbers. 257 For IP address space, the authoritative registration data service is 258 found by doing a longest match of the target address with the values 259 of the arrays in the corresponding RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry 260 for Address Space. The longest match is done the same way as for 261 routing: the addresses are converted in binary form and then the 262 binary strings are compared to find the longest match up to the 263 specified prefix length. The values contained in the second element 264 of the array are the base RDAP URLs as described in [RFC7482]. The 265 longest match method enables covering prefixes of a larger address 266 space pointing to one base RDAP URL while more specific prefixes 267 within the covering prefix are being served by another base RDAP URL. 269 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space 271 The JSON output of this registry contains IPv4 prefix entries, 272 specified in Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) format [RFC4632] 273 and grouped by RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. 275 { 276 "version": "1.0", 277 "publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z", 278 "description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.", 279 "services": [ 280 [ 281 ["1.0.0.0/8", "192.0.0.0/8"], 282 [ 283 "https://rir1.example.com/myrdap/" 284 ] 285 ], 286 [ 287 ["28.2.0.0/16", "192.0.2.0/24"], 288 [ 289 "http://example.org/" 290 ] 291 ], 292 [ 293 ["28.3.0.0/16"], 294 [ 295 "https://example.net/rdaprir2/", 296 "http://example.net/rdaprir2/" 297 ] 298 ] 299 ] 300 } 302 For example, a query for "192.0.2.1/25" matches the "192.0.0.0/8" 303 entry and the "192.0.2.0/24" entry in the example registry above. 304 The latter is chosen by the client given the longest match. The base 305 RDAP URL for this query is then taken from the second element of the 306 array, which is an array of base RDAP URLs valid for this entry. The 307 client chooses one of the base URLs from this array; in this example, 308 it chooses the only one available, "http://example.org/". The 309 {resource} specified in [RFC7482] is then appended to the base URL to 310 complete the query. The complete query is then "https://example.org/ 311 ip/192.0.2.1/25". 313 5.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space 315 The JSON output of this registry contains IPv6 prefix entries, using 316 [RFC4291] text representation of the address prefixes format, grouped 317 by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. 319 { 320 "version": "1.0", 321 "publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z", 322 "description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.", 323 "services": [ 324 [ 325 ["2001:0200::/23", "2001:db8::/32"], 326 [ 327 "https://rir2.example.com/myrdap/" 328 ] 329 ], 330 [ 331 ["2600::/16", "2100:ffff::/32"], 332 [ 333 "http://example.org/" 334 ] 335 ], 336 [ 337 ["2001:0200:1000::/36"], 338 [ 339 "https://example.net/rdaprir2/", 340 "http://example.net/rdaprir2/" 341 ] 342 ] 343 ] 344 } 346 For example, a query for "2001:0200:1000::/48" matches the 347 "2001:0200::/23" entry and the "2001:0200:1000::/36" entry in the 348 example registry above. The latter is chosen by the client given the 349 longest match. The base RDAP URL for this query is then taken from 350 the second element of the array, which is an array of base RDAP URLs 351 valid for this entry. The client chooses one of the base URLs from 352 this array; in this example, it chooses "https://example.net/ 353 rdaprir2/" because it's the secure version of the protocol. The 354 segment specified in [RFC7482] is then appended to the base URL to 355 complete the query. The complete query is, therefore, 356 "https://example.net/rdaprir2/ip/2001:0200:1000::/48". If the target 357 RDAP server does not answer, the client can then use another URL 358 prefix from the array. 360 5.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space 362 The JSON output of this contains Autonomous Systems number ranges 363 entries, grouped by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. The 364 Entry Array is an array containing the list of AS number ranges 365 served by the base RDAP URLs found in the second element. The array 366 always contains two AS numbers represented in decimal format that 367 represents the range of AS numbers between the two elements of the 368 array. A single AS number is represented as a range of two identical 369 AS numbers. 371 { 372 "version": "1.0", 373 "publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z", 374 "description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.", 375 "services": [ 376 [ 377 ["2045-2045"], 378 [ 379 "https://rir3.example.com/myrdap/" 380 ] 381 ], 382 [ 383 ["10000-12000", "300000-400000"], 384 [ 385 "http://example.org/" 386 ] 387 ], 388 [ 389 ["64512-65534"], 390 [ 391 "http://example.net/rdaprir2/", 392 "https://example.net/rdaprir2/" 393 ] 394 ] 395 ] 396 } 398 For example, a query for AS 65411 matches the 64512-65534 entry in 399 the example registry above. The base RDAP URL for this query is then 400 taken from the second element of the array, which is an array of base 401 RDAP URLs valid for this entry. The client chooses one of the base 402 URLs from this array; in this example, it chooses 403 "https://example.net/rdaprir2/". The segment specified in [RFC7482] 404 is then appended to the base URL to complete the query. The complete 405 query is, therefore, "https://example.net/rdaprir2/autnum/65411". If 406 the server does not answer, the client can then use another URL 407 prefix from the array. 409 6. Entity 411 Entities (such as contacts, registrants, or registrars) can be 412 queried by handle as described in [RFC7482]. Since there is no 413 global namespace for entities, this document does not describe how to 414 find the authoritative RDAP server for entities. However, it is 415 possible that, if the entity identifier was received from a previous 416 query, the same RDAP server could be queried for that entity, or the 417 entity identifier itself is a fully referenced URL that can be 418 queried. 420 7. Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values 422 The registries may not contain the requested value. In these cases, 423 there is no known RDAP server for that requested value, and the 424 client SHOULD provide an appropriate error message to the user. 426 8. Deployment and Implementation Considerations 428 This method relies on the fact that RDAP clients are fetching the 429 IANA registries to then find the servers locally. Clients SHOULD NOT 430 fetch the registry on every RDAP request. Clients SHOULD cache the 431 registry, but use underlying protocol signaling, such as the HTTP 432 Expires header field [RFC7234], to identify when it is time to 433 refresh the cached registry. 435 If the query data does not match any entry in the client cached 436 registry, then the client may implement various methods, such as the 437 following: 439 o In the case of a domain object, the client may first query the DNS 440 to see if the respective entry has been delegated or if it is 441 mistyped information by the user. The DNS query could be to fetch 442 the NS records for the TLD domain. If the DNS answer is positive, 443 this may mean that the currently cached registry is no longer 444 current. The client could then fetch the registry, parse, and 445 then do the normal matching as specified above. If the DNS answer 446 is negative, then the domain may be registered but not delegated 447 or may not be registered, therefore it does not help to know if 448 the cached registry is current or not. This method may not work 449 for all types of RDAP objects. 451 o If the client knows the existence of an RDAP aggregator or 452 redirector and its associated base URL, and trusts that service, 453 then it could send the query to the redirector, which would 454 redirect the client if it knows the authoritative server that 455 client has not found. 457 Some authorities of registration data may work together on sharing 458 their information for a common service, including mutual redirection 459 [REDIRECT-RDAP]. 461 When a new object is allocated, such as a new AS range, a new TLD, or 462 a new IP address range, there is no guarantee that this new object 463 will have an entry in the corresponding bootstrap RDAP registry, 464 since the setup of the RDAP server for this new entry may become live 465 and registered later. Therefore, the clients should expect that even 466 if an object, such as TLD, IP address range, or AS range is 467 allocated, the existence of the entry in the corresponding bootstrap 468 registry is not guaranteed. 470 9. Limitations 472 This method does not provide a direct way to find authoritative RDAP 473 servers for any other objects than the ones described in this 474 document. In particular, the following objects are not bootstrapped 475 with the method described in this document: 477 o entities 479 o queries using search patterns that do not contain a terminating 480 string that matches some entries in the registries 482 o nameservers 484 o help 486 10. Formal Definition 488 This section is the formal definition of the registries. The 489 structure of JSON objects and arrays using a set of primitive 490 elements is defined in [RFC7159]. Those elements are used to 491 describe the JSON structure of the registries. 493 10.1. Imported JSON Terms 495 o OBJECT: a JSON object, defined in Section 4 of [RFC7159] 497 o MEMBER: a member of a JSON object, defined in Section 4 of 498 [RFC7159] 500 o MEMBER-NAME: the name of a MEMBER, defined as a "string" in 501 Section 4 of [RFC7159] 503 o MEMBER-VALUE: the value of a MEMBER, defined as a "value" in 504 Section 4 of [RFC7159] 506 o ARRAY: an array, defined in Section 5 of [RFC7159] 508 o ARRAY-VALUE: an element of an ARRAY, defined in Section 5 of 509 [RFC7159] 511 o STRING: a "string", as defined in Section 7 of [RFC7159] 513 10.2. Registry Syntax 515 Using the above terms for the JSON structures, the syntax of a 516 registry is defined as follows: 518 o rdap-bootstrap-registry: an OBJECT containing a MEMBER version and 519 a MEMBER publication, an optional MEMBER description, and a MEMBER 520 services-list 522 o version: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "version" and MEMBER-VALUE a 523 STRING 525 o publication: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "publication" and MEMBER- 526 VALUE a STRING 528 o description: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "description" and MEMBER- 529 VALUE a STRING 531 o services-list: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "services" and MEMBER- 532 VALUE a services-array 534 o services-array: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service 536 o service: an ARRAY of 2 elements, where the first ARRAY-VALUE is a 537 an entry-list and the second ARRAY-VALUE is a service-uri-list 539 o entry-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is an entry 541 o entry: a STRING 543 o service-uri-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service- 544 uri 546 o service-uri: a STRING 548 11. Security Considerations 550 By providing a bootstrap method to find RDAP servers, this document 551 helps to ensure that the end users will get the RDAP data from an 552 authoritative source, instead of from rogue sources. The method has 553 the same security properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The 554 transport used to access the registries can be more secure by using 555 TLS [RFC8446], which IANA supports. 557 Additional considerations on using RDAP are described in [RFC7481]. 559 12. IANA Considerations 561 IANA has created the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries, listed 562 below, and made them available as JSON objects. The contents of 563 these registries are described in Section 3, Section 4, and 564 Section 5, with the formal syntax specified in Section 10. 566 The process for adding or updating entries in these registries 567 differs from the normal IANA registry processes: these registries are 568 generated from the data, processes, and policies maintained by IANA 569 in their allocation registries ([ipv4reg], [ipv6reg], [asreg], and 570 [domainreg]), with the addition of new RDAP server information. 572 IANA updates RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries entries from the 573 allocation registries as those registries are updated. 575 This document does not change any policies related to the allocation 576 registries; IANA has provided a mechanism for collecting the RDAP 577 server information. The RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries will 578 start empty and will be gradually populated as registrants of domains 579 and address spaces provide RDAP server information to IANA. 581 IANA has created a new top-level category on the Protocol Registries 582 page, . The group is called 583 "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)". Each of the RDAP 584 Bootstrap Services Registries has been made available for general 585 public on-demand download in the JSON format, and that registry's URI 586 is listed directly on the Protocol Registries page. 588 Other normal registries will be added to this group by other 589 documents, but the reason the URIs for these registries are clearly 590 listed on the main page is to make those URIs obvious to implementers 591 -- these are registries that will be accessed by software, as well as 592 by humans using them for reference information. 594 Because these registries will be accessed by software, the download 595 demand for the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries may be unusually 596 high compared to normal IANA registries. The technical 597 infrastructure by which registries are published has been put in 598 place by IANA to support the load. Since the first publication of 599 this RFC, no issue have been reported regarding the load or the 600 service. 602 As discussed in Section 8, software that accesses these registries 603 will depend on the HTTP Expires header field to limit their query 604 rate. It is, therefore, important for that header field to be 605 properly set to provide timely information as the registries change, 606 while maintaining a reasonable load on the IANA servers. 608 The HTTP Content-Type returned to clients accessing these JSON- 609 formatted registries MUST be "application/json", as defined in 610 [RFC7159]. 612 Because of how information in the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries 613 is grouped and formatted, the registry entries may not be sortable. 614 It is, therefore, not required or expected that the entries be sorted 615 in any way. 617 12.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space 619 Entries in this registry contain at least the following: 621 o a CIDR [RFC4632] specification of the network block being 622 registered. 624 o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this 625 registration. 627 12.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space 629 Entries in this registry contain at least the following: 631 o an IPv6 prefix [RFC4291] specification of the network block being 632 registered. 634 o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this 635 registration. 637 12.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space 639 Entries in this registry contain at least the following: 641 o a range of Autonomous System numbers being registered. 643 o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this 644 registration. 646 12.4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space 648 Entries in this registry contain at least the following: 650 o a domain name attached to the root being registered. 652 o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this 653 registration. 655 13. References 657 13.1. Normative References 659 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 660 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 661 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 662 . 664 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 665 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 666 . 668 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 669 Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 670 2006, . 672 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 673 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 674 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August 675 2006, . 677 [RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for 678 Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", 679 RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010, 680 . 682 [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 683 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March 684 2014, . 686 [RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an 687 Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May 688 2014, . 690 13.2. Informative References 692 [asreg] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", 693 . 695 [domainreg] 696 IANA, "Root Zone Database", 697 . 699 [ipv4reg] IANA, "IPv4 Address Space Registry", 700 . 702 [ipv6reg] IANA, "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments", 703 . 706 [REDIRECT-RDAP] 707 Martinez, C., Zhou, L., and G. Rada, "Redirection Service 708 for Registration Data Access Protocol", Work in Progress, 709 draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-04, July 2014. 711 [RFC7071] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for 712 Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, DOI 10.17487/RFC7071, 713 November 2013, . 715 [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, 716 Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", 717 RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014, 718 . 720 [RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the 721 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, 722 DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015, 723 . 725 [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 726 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, 727 DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, 728 . 730 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 731 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 732 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 733 . 735 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 736 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 737 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 738 . 740 [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol 741 Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, 742 . 744 Acknowledgements 746 The WEIRDS working group had multiple discussions on this topic, 747 including a session during IETF 84, where various methods such as 748 in-DNS and others were debated. The idea of using IANA registries 749 was discovered by the author during discussions with his colleagues 750 as well as by a comment from Andy Newton. All the people involved in 751 these discussions are herein acknowledged. Linlin Zhou, Jean- 752 Philippe Dionne, John Levine, Kim Davies, Ernie Dainow, Scott 753 Hollenbeck, Arturo Servin, Andy Newton, Murray Kucherawy, Tom 754 Harrison, Naoki Kambe, Alexander Mayrhofer, Edward Lewis, Pete 755 Resnick, Alessandro Vesely, Bert Greevenbosch, Barry Leiba, Jari 756 Arkko, Kathleen Moriaty, Stephen Farrell, Richard Barnes, and Jean- 757 Francois Tremblay have provided input and suggestions to this 758 document. Guillaume Leclanche was a coauthor of this document for 759 some revisions; his support is therein acknowledged and greatly 760 appreciated. The section on formal definition was inspired by 761 Section 6.2 of [RFC7071].This new version of the document got 762 comments from the following: Gavin Brown, Patrick Mevzek, John 763 Levine. 765 Author's Address 767 Marc Blanchet 768 Viagenie 769 246 Aberdeen 770 Quebec, QC G1R 2E1 771 Canada 773 EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca 774 URI: http://viagenie.ca