idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04.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 (July 15, 2018) is 2110 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: January 16, 2019 July 15, 2018 8 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging 9 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-object-tag-04 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 January 16, 2019. 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 RDAP query URL is formed using 141 the base RDAP URL and entity path segment described in Section 3.1.5 142 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], using "XXXX-YYY" as the value of the handle 143 identifier. The complete RDAP query URL becomes 144 "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY". 146 Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured 147 potential query identifiers in RDAP responses. Consider these elided 148 examples ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from 149 Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle identifiers 150 have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC" 151 respectively: 153 { 154 "objectClassName" : "domain", 155 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 156 "ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa", 157 "nameservers" : 158 [ 159 ... 160 ], 161 "secureDNS": 162 { 163 ... 164 }, 165 "remarks" : 166 [ 167 ... 168 ], 169 "links" : 170 [ 171 ... 172 ], 173 "events" : 174 [ 175 ... 176 ], 177 "entities" : 178 [ 179 { 180 "objectClassName" : "entity", 181 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 182 "vcardArray": 183 [ 184 ... 185 ], 186 "roles" : [ "registrant" ], 187 "remarks" : 188 [ 189 ... 190 ], 191 "links" : 192 [ 193 ... 195 ], 196 "events" : 197 [ 198 ... 199 ] 200 } 201 ], 202 "network" : 203 { 204 "objectClassName" : "ip network", 205 "handle" : "XXXX-RIR", 206 "startAddress" : "192.0.2.0", 207 "endAddress" : "192.0.2.255", 208 "ipVersion" : "v4", 209 "name": "NET-RTR-1", 210 "type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION", 211 "country" : "AU", 212 "parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR", 213 "status" : [ "active" ] 214 } 215 } 217 Figure 1 219 { 220 "objectClassName" : "domain", 221 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 222 "ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example", 223 "unicodeName" : "foo.example", 224 "variants" : 225 [ 226 ... 227 ], 228 "status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ], 229 "publicIds": 230 [ 231 ... 232 ], 233 "nameservers" : 234 [ 235 { 236 "objectClassName" : "nameserver", 237 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 238 "ldhName" : "ns1.example.com", 239 "status" : [ "active" ], 240 "ipAddresses" : 241 { 242 ... 244 }, 245 "remarks" : 246 [ 247 ... 248 ], 249 "links" : 250 [ 251 ... 252 ], 253 "events" : 254 [ 255 ... 256 ] 257 }, 258 { 259 "objectClassName" : "nameserver", 260 "handle" : "XXXX-DNR", 261 "ldhName" : "ns2.example.com", 262 "status" : [ "active" ], 263 "ipAddresses" : 264 { 265 ... 266 }, 267 "remarks" : 268 [ 269 ... 270 ], 271 "links" : 272 [ 273 ... 274 ], 275 "events" : 276 [ 277 ... 278 ] 279 } 280 ], 281 "secureDNS": 282 { 283 ... 284 }, 285 "remarks" : 286 [ 287 ... 288 ], 289 "links" : 290 [ 291 ... 293 ], 294 "port43" : "whois.example.net", 295 "events" : 296 [ 297 ... 298 ], 299 "entities" : 300 [ 301 { 302 "objectClassName" : "entity", 303 "handle" : "XXXX-ABC", 304 "vcardArray": 305 [ 306 ... 307 ], 308 "status" : [ "validated", "locked" ], 309 "roles" : [ "registrant" ], 310 "remarks" : 311 [ 312 ... 313 ], 314 "links" : 315 [ 316 ... 317 ], 318 "events" : 319 [ 320 ... 321 ] 322 } 323 ] 324 } 326 Figure 2 328 As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can 329 contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references 330 SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider 331 tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to 332 identify a service provider. 334 There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN- 335 MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator 336 purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly 337 assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and the 338 text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider identifier. A 339 client that queries the IANA registry for what they assume is a valid 340 service provider will likely receive an unexpected, invalid result. 342 As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character as a service 343 provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding rdapConformance value 344 to query responses as described in Section 4. 346 The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons: 347 1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it 348 avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of 349 unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986] 350 provided multiple options for consideration: 352 unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" 354 ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly 355 used in entity handles for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is 356 commonly used as a separator and recognition of this practice will 357 reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The 358 remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used 359 as separators in entity handles. 361 3. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 363 The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is 364 represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484 365 [RFC7484]. The JSON output of this registry contains alphanumeric 366 identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, grouped by base 367 RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. 369 { 370 "version": "1.0", 371 "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ", 372 "description": "RDAP service provider bootstrap values", 373 "services": [ 374 [ 375 ["YYYY"], 376 [ 377 "https://example.com/rdap/" 378 ] 379 ], 380 [ 381 ["ZZ54"], 382 [ 383 "http://rdap.example.org/" 384 ] 385 ], 386 [ 387 ["1754"], 388 [ 389 "https://example.net/rdap/", 390 "http://example.net/rdap/" 391 ] 392 ] 393 ] 394 } 396 Figure 3 398 Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix 399 portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2 400 of RFC 5730 [RFC5730]. 402 3.1. Registration Procedure 404 The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come 405 First Served" policy defined in RFC 8126 [RFC8126]. Provider 406 identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request. 407 Registration requests include the requested service provider 408 identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an identifier) 409 and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the service 410 provider identifier. 412 4. RDAP Conformance 414 RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST 415 indicate conformance with this specification by including an 416 rdapConformance ([RFC7483]) value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0". The 417 information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions 418 Registry is described in Section 5.2. 420 Example rdapConformance structure with extension specified: 422 "rdapConformance" : 423 [ 424 "rdap_level_0", 425 "rdap_objectTag_level_0" 426 ] 428 Figure 4 430 5. IANA Considerations 432 IANA is requested to create the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registry 433 listed below and make it available as JSON objects. The contents of 434 this registry is described in Section 3, with the formal syntax 435 specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484]. 437 5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for RDAP Service Providers 439 Entries in this registry contain at least the following: 441 o An alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider 442 being registered. 443 o One or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this 444 registration. 446 5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry 448 IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP 449 Extensions Registry: 451 Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag 452 Registry operator: Any 453 Published specification: This document. 454 Contact: IESG 455 Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for 456 structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping. 458 6. Implementation Status 460 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 461 to publication as an RFC. 463 This section records the status of known implementations of the 464 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 465 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 466 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 467 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 468 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 469 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 470 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 471 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 472 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 473 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 474 other implementations may exist. 476 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 477 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 478 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 479 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 480 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 481 they see fit". 483 6.1. Verisign Labs 485 Responsible Organization: Verisign Labs 486 Location: https://rdap.verisignlabs.com/ 487 Description: This implementation includes support for domain 488 registry RDAP queries using live data from the .cc and .tv country 489 code top-level domains. Client authentication is required to 490 receive entity information in query responses. 491 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 492 implementation. 493 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 494 described in this specification. 495 Contact Information: Scott Hollenbeck, shollenbeck@verisign.com 497 6.2. OpenRDAP 499 Responsible Organization: OpenRDAP 500 Location: https://www.openrdap.org 501 Description: RDAP client implementing bootstrapping for entity 502 handles with a service provider tag. A test Bootstrap Services 503 Registry file is currently used in lieu of an official one. 504 Level of Maturity: Alpha 505 Coverage: Implements draft 04+, supports the HYPHEN-MINUS 506 separator character only. 507 Contact Information: Tom Harwood, tfh@skip.org 509 7. Security Considerations 511 This practice helps to ensure that end users will get RDAP data from 512 an authoritative source using a bootstrap method to find 513 authoritative RDAP servers, reducing the risk of sending queries to 514 non-authoritative sources. The method has the same security 515 properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The transport used to 516 access the IANA registries can be more secure by using TLS [RFC5246], 517 which IANA supports. Additional considerations associated with RDAP 518 are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481]. 520 8. Acknowledgements 522 The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for 523 their contributions to the development of this document: Tom 524 Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors 525 would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) 526 operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been 527 implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for 528 several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for 529 the development of this document. 531 9. References 533 9.1. Normative References 535 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 536 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 537 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 538 . 540 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", 541 STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, 542 . 544 [RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data 545 (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March 546 2015, . 548 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 549 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 550 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 551 . 553 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 554 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 555 May 2017, . 557 9.2. Informative References 559 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 560 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 561 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 562 . 564 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 565 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 566 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 567 . 569 [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 570 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, 571 DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, 572 . 574 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 575 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 576 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 577 . 579 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 580 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 581 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 582 . 584 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 585 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 586 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 587 . 589 Appendix A. Change Log 591 00: Initial version. 592 01: Changed separator character from HYPHEN MINUS to COMMERCIAL AT. 593 Added a recommendation to maintain consistency between service 594 provider tags and "self" links (suggestion received from Tom 595 Harrison). Fixed a spelling error, and corrected the network 596 example in Section 2 (editorial erratum reported for RFC 7483 by 597 Marcos Sanz). Added acknowledgements. 598 02: Changed separator character from COMMERCIAL AT to TILDE. 599 Clarity updates and fixed an example handle. Added text to 600 describe the risk of separator characters appearing naturally in 601 entity handles and being misinterpreted as separator characters. 602 03: Added Implementation Status section (Section 6). 603 04: Keepalive refresh. 604 05: Added OpenRDAP implementation information to Section 6. 606 00: Initial working group version. 607 01: Added text to describe why the TILDE character was chosen as the 608 separator character. 609 02: Nit fixes. Added rdapConformance text, switched back to HYPHEN 610 MINUS, and added IANA registration instructions per working group 611 last call discussion. Updated suffix syntax reference from the 612 IANA EPP ROID registry to RFC 5730 (which is what the IANA 613 registry references). 614 03: Shephered writeup review updates to explain examples in 615 Section 2. 616 04: AD review update to clarify query path construction. 618 Authors' Addresses 620 Scott Hollenbeck 621 Verisign Labs 622 12061 Bluemont Way 623 Reston, VA 20190 624 USA 626 Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com 627 URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ 629 Andrew Lee Newton 630 American Registry for Internet Numbers 631 PO Box 232290 632 Centreville, VA 20120 633 US 635 Email: andy@arin.net 636 URI: http://www.arin.net