idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-02.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (April 27, 2018) is 2192 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7484 (Obsoleted by RFC 9224) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) -- 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 (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Registration Protocols Extensions S. Hollenbeck 3 Internet-Draft Verisign Labs 4 Updates: 7484 (if approved) A. Newton 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice ARIN 6 Expires: October 29, 2018 April 27, 2018 8 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging 9 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-02 11 Abstract 13 The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that 14 can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing 15 domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries. The 16 method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for 17 processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries. This 18 limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query 19 types are typically unstructured. This document updates RFC 7484 by 20 describing an operational practice that can be used to add structure 21 to RDAP identifiers that makes it possible to identify the 22 authoritative server for additional RDAP queries. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2018. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . . . 8 61 3.1. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 4. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers . . 10 65 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 6.1. Verisign Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 6.2. OpenRDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 1. Introduction 79 The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method 80 ([RFC7484]) that can be used to identify the authoritative server for 81 processing domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number 82 (ASN) queries. This method works because each of these data elements 83 is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the 84 element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP 85 service provider. For example, domain names include labels (such as 86 "com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service 87 providers. 89 As noted in Section 9 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484], the method does not 90 describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing 91 entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using 92 certain search patterns. This limitation exists because the 93 identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a 94 way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific 95 service provider. This document describes an operational practice 96 that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers that makes it 97 possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP 98 queries. 100 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 101 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 102 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 103 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 104 capitals, as shown here. 106 2. Object Naming Practice 108 Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it 109 possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP 110 query using the method described in RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. A service 111 provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode HYPHEN-MINUS 112 character "-" (U+002D, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC 113 3986 [RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the 114 service provider. For example, a tag for a service provider 115 identified by the string value "ARIN" is represented as "-ARIN". 117 Service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP query 118 object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative server 119 for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from 120 Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], an RDAP entity handle can be 121 constructed that allows an RDAP client to bootstrap an entity query. 122 The following identifier is used to find information for the entity 123 associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN": 125 XXXX-ARIN 127 Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this 128 identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier 129 elements. Handles can themselves contain HYPHEN-MINUS characters; 130 the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN- 131 MINUS character in the tagged identifier. The service provider 132 identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry. 133 The base URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP 134 query path segment. For example, if the base RDAP URL 135 "https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service provider 136 "YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged entity 137 identifier "XXXX-YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service 138 provider ("YYYY") identifiers. The service provider identifier 139 "YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP 140 URL "https://example.com/rdap/". The base RDAP URL is concatenated 141 to the entity handle to create a complete RDAP query path segment of 142 "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY". 144 Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured 145 potential query identifiers in RDAP responses. Consider these elided 146 examples from Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle 147 identifiers have been tagged with a service provider tag: 149 { 150 "objectClassName" : "domain", 151 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 152 "ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa", 153 "nameservers" : 154 [ 155 ... 156 ], 157 "secureDNS": 158 { 159 ... 160 }, 161 "remarks" : 162 [ 163 ... 164 ], 165 "links" : 166 [ 167 ... 168 ], 169 "events" : 170 [ 171 ... 172 ], 173 "entities" : 174 [ 175 { 176 "objectClassName" : "entity", 177 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 178 "vcardArray": 179 [ 180 ... 181 ], 182 "roles" : [ "registrant" ], 183 "remarks" : 184 [ 185 ... 186 ], 187 "links" : 188 [ 189 ... 190 ], 191 "events" : 193 [ 194 ... 195 ] 196 } 197 ], 198 "network" : 199 { 200 "objectClassName" : "ip network", 201 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 202 "startAddress" : "192.0.2.0", 203 "endAddress" : "192.0.2.255", 204 "ipVersion" : "v4", 205 "name": "NET-RTR-1", 206 "type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION", 207 "country" : "AU", 208 "parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR", 209 "status" : [ "active" ] 210 } 211 } 213 Figure 1 215 { 216 "objectClassName" : "domain", 217 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 218 "ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example", 219 "unicodeName" : "foo.example", 220 "variants" : 221 [ 222 ... 223 ], 224 "status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ], 225 "publicIds": 226 [ 227 ... 228 ], 229 "nameservers" : 230 [ 231 { 232 "objectClassName" : "nameserver", 233 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 234 "ldhName" : "ns1.example.com", 235 "status" : [ "active" ], 236 "ipAddresses" : 237 { 238 ... 239 }, 240 "remarks" : 242 [ 243 ... 244 ], 245 "links" : 246 [ 247 ... 248 ], 249 "events" : 250 [ 251 ... 252 ] 253 }, 254 { 255 "objectClassName" : "nameserver", 256 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 257 "ldhName" : "ns2.example.com", 258 "status" : [ "active" ], 259 "ipAddresses" : 260 { 261 ... 262 }, 263 "remarks" : 264 [ 265 ... 266 ], 267 "links" : 268 [ 269 ... 270 ], 271 "events" : 272 [ 273 ... 274 ] 275 } 276 ], 277 "secureDNS": 278 { 279 ... 280 }, 281 "remarks" : 282 [ 283 ... 284 ], 285 "links" : 286 [ 287 ... 288 ], 289 "port43" : "whois.example.net", 290 "events" : 291 [ 292 ... 293 ], 294 "entities" : 295 [ 296 { 297 "objectClassName" : "entity", 298 "handle" : "XXXX-ABC", 299 "vcardArray": 300 [ 301 ... 302 ], 303 "status" : [ "validated", "locked" ], 304 "roles" : [ "registrant" ], 305 "remarks" : 306 [ 307 ... 308 ], 309 "links" : 310 [ 311 ... 312 ], 313 "events" : 314 [ 315 ... 316 ] 317 } 318 ] 319 } 321 Figure 2 323 As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can 324 contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references 325 SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider 326 tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to 327 identify a service provider. 329 There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN- 330 MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator 331 purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly 332 assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the 333 text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier. A 334 client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid 335 service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result. 336 As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service 337 provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding rdapConformance value 338 to query responses as described in Section 4. 340 The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons: 341 1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it 342 avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of 343 unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986] 344 provided multiple options for consideration: 346 unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" 348 ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly 349 used in entity handles for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is 350 commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will 351 reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The 352 remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used 353 as separators in entity handles. 355 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 357 The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is 358 represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484 359 [RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains alphanumeric 360 identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base 361 RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. 363 { 364 "version": "1.0", 365 "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ", 366 "description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values", 367 "services": [ 368 [ 369 ["YYYY"], 370 [ 371 "https://example.com/rdap/" 372 ] 373 ], 374 [ 375 ["ZZ54"], 376 [ 377 "http://rdap.example.org/" 378 ] 379 ], 380 [ 381 ["1754"], 382 [ 383 "https://example.net/rdap/", 384 "http://example.net/rdap/" 385 ] 386 ] 387 ] 388 } 390 Figure 3 392 Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix 393 portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2 394 of RFC 5730 [RFC5730]. 396 3.1. Registration Procedure 398 The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come 399 First Served" policy defined in RFC 8126 [RFC8126]. Provider 400 identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request. 401 Registration requests include the requested service provider 402 identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier) 403 and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the service 404 provider identifier. 406 4. RDAP Conformance 408 RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST 409 indicate conformance with this specification by including an 410 rdapConformance ([RFC7483]) value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0". The 411 information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions 412 Registry is described in Section 5.2. 414 Example rdapConformance structure with extension specified: 416 "rdapConformance" : 417 [ 418 "rdap_level_0", 419 "rdap_objectTag_level_0" 420 ] 422 Figure 4 424 5. IANA Considerations 426 IANA is requested to create the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registry 427 listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of 428 this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax 429 specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. 431 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 433 Entries in this registry contain at least the following: 435 o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider 436 being registered. 437 o One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this 438 registration. 440 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry 442 IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP 443 Extensions Registry: 445 Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag 446 Registry operator: Any 447 Published specification: This document. 448 Contact: IESG 449 Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for 450 structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping. 452 6. Implementation Status 454 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 455 to publication as an RFC. 457 This section records the status of known implementations of the 458 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 459 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 460 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 461 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 462 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 463 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 464 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 465 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 466 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 467 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 468 other implementations may exist. 470 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 471 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 472 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 473 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 474 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 475 they see fit". 477 6.1. Verisign Labs 479 Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs 480 Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/ 481 Description: This implementation includes support for domain 482 registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country 483 code top-level domains. Client authentication is required to 484 receive entity information in query responses. 485 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 486 implementation. 487 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 488 described in this specification. 489 Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com 491 6.2. OpenRDAP 493 Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP 494 Location: https://www.openrdap.org 495 Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity 496 handles with a service provider tag. A test Bootstrap Services 497 Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one. 498 Level of Maturity: Alpha 499 Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the HYPHEN-MINUS 500 separator character only. 501 Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org 503 7. Security Considerations 505 This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from 506 an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find 507 authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to 508 non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security 509 properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to 510 access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246], 511 which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP 512 are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481]. 514 8. Acknowledgements 516 The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for 517 their contributions to the development of this document: Tom 518 Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors 519 would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) 520 operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been 521 implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for 522 several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for 523 the development of this document. 525 9. References 527 9.1. Normative References 529 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 530 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 531 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 532 . 534 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", 535 STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, 536 . 538 [RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data 539 (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March 540 2015, . 542 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 543 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 544 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 545 . 547 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 548 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 549 May 2017, . 551 9.2. Informative References 553 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 554 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 555 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 556 . 558 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 559 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 560 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 561 . 563 [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 564 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, 565 DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, 566 . 568 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 569 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 570 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 571 . 573 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 574 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 575 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 576 . 578 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 579 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 580 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 581 . 583 Appendix A. Change Log 585 00: Initial version. 586 01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT. 587 Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service 588 provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom 589 Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network 590 example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by 591 Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements. 592 02: Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE. 593 Clarity updates and fixed an example handle. Added text to 594 describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in 595 entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters. 596 03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 6). 597 04: Keepalive refresh. 598 05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6. 600 00: Initial working group version. 601 01: Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the 602 separator character. 603 02: Nit fixes. Added rdapConformance text, switched back to HYPHEN 604 MINUS, and added IANA registration instructions per working group 605 last call discussion. Updated suffix syntax reference from the 606 IANA EPP ROID registry to RFC 5730 (which is what the IANA 607 registry references). 609 Authors' Addresses 611 Scott Hollenbeck 612 Verisign Labs 613 12061 Bluemont Way 614 Reston, VA 20190 615 USA 617 Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com 618 URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ 620 Andrew Lee Newton 621 American Registry for Internet Numbers 622 PO Box 232290 623 Centreville, VA 20120 624 US 626 Email: andy@arin.net 627 URI: http://www.arin.net