idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-03.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 (May 21, 2018) is 2164 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: November 22, 2018 May 21, 2018 8 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging 9 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-03 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 November 22, 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 ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from 147 Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle identifiers 148 have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC" 149 respectively: 151 { 152 "objectClassName" : "domain", 153 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 154 "ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa", 155 "nameservers" : 156 [ 157 ... 158 ], 159 "secureDNS": 160 { 161 ... 162 }, 163 "remarks" : 164 [ 165 ... 166 ], 167 "links" : 168 [ 169 ... 170 ], 171 "events" : 172 [ 173 ... 174 ], 175 "entities" : 176 [ 177 { 178 "objectClassName" : "entity", 179 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 180 "vcardArray": 181 [ 182 ... 183 ], 184 "roles" : [ "registrant" ], 185 "remarks" : 186 [ 187 ... 188 ], 189 "links" : 190 [ 191 ... 193 ], 194 "events" : 195 [ 196 ... 197 ] 198 } 199 ], 200 "network" : 201 { 202 "objectClassName" : "ip network", 203 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 204 "startAddress" : "192.0.2.0", 205 "endAddress" : "192.0.2.255", 206 "ipVersion" : "v4", 207 "name": "NET-RTR-1", 208 "type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION", 209 "country" : "AU", 210 "parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR", 211 "status" : [ "active" ] 212 } 213 } 215 Figure 1 217 { 218 "objectClassName" : "domain", 219 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 220 "ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example", 221 "unicodeName" : "foo.example", 222 "variants" : 223 [ 224 ... 225 ], 226 "status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ], 227 "publicIds": 228 [ 229 ... 230 ], 231 "nameservers" : 232 [ 233 { 234 "objectClassName" : "nameserver", 235 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 236 "ldhName" : "ns1.example.com", 237 "status" : [ "active" ], 238 "ipAddresses" : 239 { 240 ... 242 }, 243 "remarks" : 244 [ 245 ... 246 ], 247 "links" : 248 [ 249 ... 250 ], 251 "events" : 252 [ 253 ... 254 ] 255 }, 256 { 257 "objectClassName" : "nameserver", 258 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 259 "ldhName" : "ns2.example.com", 260 "status" : [ "active" ], 261 "ipAddresses" : 262 { 263 ... 264 }, 265 "remarks" : 266 [ 267 ... 268 ], 269 "links" : 270 [ 271 ... 272 ], 273 "events" : 274 [ 275 ... 276 ] 277 } 278 ], 279 "secureDNS": 280 { 281 ... 282 }, 283 "remarks" : 284 [ 285 ... 286 ], 287 "links" : 288 [ 289 ... 291 ], 292 "port43" : "whois.example.net", 293 "events" : 294 [ 295 ... 296 ], 297 "entities" : 298 [ 299 { 300 "objectClassName" : "entity", 301 "handle" : "XXXX-ABC", 302 "vcardArray": 303 [ 304 ... 305 ], 306 "status" : [ "validated", "locked" ], 307 "roles" : [ "registrant" ], 308 "remarks" : 309 [ 310 ... 311 ], 312 "links" : 313 [ 314 ... 315 ], 316 "events" : 317 [ 318 ... 319 ] 320 } 321 ] 322 } 324 Figure 2 326 As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can 327 contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references 328 SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider 329 tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to 330 identify a service provider. 332 There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN- 333 MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator 334 purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly 335 assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the 336 text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier. A 337 client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid 338 service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result. 340 As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service 341 provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding rdapConformance value 342 to query responses as described in Section 4. 344 The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons: 345 1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it 346 avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of 347 unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986] 348 provided multiple options for consideration: 350 unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" 352 ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly 353 used in entity handles for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is 354 commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will 355 reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The 356 remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used 357 as separators in entity handles. 359 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 361 The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is 362 represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484 363 [RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains alphanumeric 364 identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base 365 RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. 367 { 368 "version": "1.0", 369 "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ", 370 "description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values", 371 "services": [ 372 [ 373 ["YYYY"], 374 [ 375 "https://example.com/rdap/" 376 ] 377 ], 378 [ 379 ["ZZ54"], 380 [ 381 "http://rdap.example.org/" 382 ] 383 ], 384 [ 385 ["1754"], 386 [ 387 "https://example.net/rdap/", 388 "http://example.net/rdap/" 389 ] 390 ] 391 ] 392 } 394 Figure 3 396 Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix 397 portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2 398 of RFC 5730 [RFC5730]. 400 3.1. Registration Procedure 402 The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come 403 First Served" policy defined in RFC 8126 [RFC8126]. Provider 404 identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request. 405 Registration requests include the requested service provider 406 identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier) 407 and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the service 408 provider identifier. 410 4. RDAP Conformance 412 RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST 413 indicate conformance with this specification by including an 414 rdapConformance ([RFC7483]) value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0". The 415 information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions 416 Registry is described in Section 5.2. 418 Example rdapConformance structure with extension specified: 420 "rdapConformance" : 421 [ 422 "rdap_level_0", 423 "rdap_objectTag_level_0" 424 ] 426 Figure 4 428 5. IANA Considerations 430 IANA is requested to create the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registry 431 listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of 432 this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax 433 specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. 435 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 437 Entries in this registry contain at least the following: 439 o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider 440 being registered. 441 o One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this 442 registration. 444 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry 446 IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP 447 Extensions Registry: 449 Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag 450 Registry operator: Any 451 Published specification: This document. 452 Contact: IESG 453 Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for 454 structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping. 456 6. Implementation Status 458 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 459 to publication as an RFC. 461 This section records the status of known implementations of the 462 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 463 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 464 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 465 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 466 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 467 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 468 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 469 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 470 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 471 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 472 other implementations may exist. 474 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 475 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 476 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 477 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 478 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 479 they see fit". 481 6.1. Verisign Labs 483 Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs 484 Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/ 485 Description: This implementation includes support for domain 486 registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country 487 code top-level domains. Client authentication is required to 488 receive entity information in query responses. 489 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 490 implementation. 491 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 492 described in this specification. 493 Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com 495 6.2. OpenRDAP 497 Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP 498 Location: https://www.openrdap.org 499 Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity 500 handles with a service provider tag. A test Bootstrap Services 501 Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one. 502 Level of Maturity: Alpha 503 Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the HYPHEN-MINUS 504 separator character only. 505 Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org 507 7. Security Considerations 509 This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from 510 an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find 511 authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to 512 non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security 513 properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to 514 access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246], 515 which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP 516 are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481]. 518 8. Acknowledgements 520 The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for 521 their contributions to the development of this document: Tom 522 Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors 523 would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) 524 operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been 525 implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for 526 several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for 527 the development of this document. 529 9. References 531 9.1. Normative References 533 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 534 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 535 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 536 . 538 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", 539 STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, 540 . 542 [RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data 543 (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March 544 2015, . 546 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 547 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 548 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 549 . 551 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 552 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 553 May 2017, . 555 9.2. Informative References 557 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 558 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 559 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 560 . 562 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 563 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 564 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 565 . 567 [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 568 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, 569 DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, 570 . 572 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 573 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 574 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 575 . 577 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 578 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 579 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 580 . 582 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 583 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 584 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 585 . 587 Appendix A. Change Log 589 00: Initial version. 590 01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT. 591 Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service 592 provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom 593 Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network 594 example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by 595 Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements. 596 02: Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE. 597 Clarity updates and fixed an example handle. Added text to 598 describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in 599 entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters. 600 03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 6). 601 04: Keepalive refresh. 602 05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6. 604 00: Initial working group version. 605 01: Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the 606 separator character. 607 02: Nit fixes. Added rdapConformance text, switched back to HYPHEN 608 MINUS, and added IANA registration instructions per working group 609 last call discussion. Updated suffix syntax reference from the 610 IANA EPP ROID registry to RFC 5730 (which is what the IANA 611 registry references). 612 03: Shephered writeup review updates to explain examples in 613 Section 2. 615 Authors' Addresses 617 Scott Hollenbeck 618 Verisign Labs 619 12061 Bluemont Way 620 Reston, VA 20190 621 USA 623 Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com 624 URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ 626 Andrew Lee Newton 627 American Registry for Internet Numbers 628 PO Box 232290 629 Centreville, VA 20120 630 US 632 Email: andy@arin.net 633 URI: http://www.arin.net