idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-06.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 (August 16, 2013) is 3878 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-precis-nickname-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec' == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-07 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 952 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1166 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4290 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4627 (Obsoleted by RFC 7158, RFC 7159) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Newton 3 Internet-Draft ARIN 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Hollenbeck 5 Expires: February 17, 2014 Verisign Labs 6 August 16, 2013 8 Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format 9 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-06 11 Abstract 13 This document describes uniform patterns to construct HTTP URLs that 14 may be used to retrieve registration information from registries 15 (including both Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name 16 Registries (DNRs)) using "RESTful" web access patterns. 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 http://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 17, 2014. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2013 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 (http://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. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification . . . . 5 59 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . 6 61 3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 3.2.1. Domain Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 3.2.2. Name Server Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 3.2.3. Entity Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 4. Search Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 1. Conventions Used in This Document 81 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 82 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 83 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 85 1.1. Acronyms and Abbreviations 87 IDN: Internationalized Domain Name 88 IDNA: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications 89 DNR: Domain Name Registry 90 RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol 91 REST: Representational State Transfer State Transfer. The term 92 was first described in a doctoral dissertation [REST]. 93 RESTful: an adjective that describes a service using HTTP and the 94 principles of REST. 95 RIR: Regional Internet Registry 97 2. Introduction 99 This document describes a specification for querying registration 100 data using a RESTful web service and uniform query patterns. The 101 service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 102 [RFC2616]. 104 The protocol described in this specification is intended to address 105 deficiencies with the WHOIS protocol [RFC3912] that have been 106 identified over time, including: 108 o Lack of standardized command structures, 109 o lack of standardized output and error structures, 110 o lack of support for internationalization and localization, and 111 o lack of support for user identification, authentication, and 112 access control. 114 The patterns described in this document purposefully do not encompass 115 all of the methods employed in the WHOIS and RESTful web services of 116 all of the RIRs and DNRs. The intent of the patterns described here 117 are to enable queries of: 119 o networks by IP address, 120 o autonomous system numbers by number, 121 o reverse DNS meta-data by domain, 122 o name servers by name, 123 o registrars by name, and 124 o entities (such as contacts) by identifier. 126 It is envisioned that each registry will continue to maintain NICNAME 127 /WHOIS and/or RESTful web services specific to their needs and those 128 of their constituencies, and the information retrieved through the 129 patterns described here may reference such services. 131 Likewise, future IETF standards may add additional patterns for 132 additional query types. A simple pattern namespacing scheme is 133 described in Section 5 to accomodate custom extensions that will not 134 interfere with the patterns defined in this document or patterns 135 defined in future IETF standards. 137 WHOIS services, in general, are read-only services. Therefore URL 138 [RFC3986] patterns specified in this document are only applicable to 139 the HTTP [RFC2616] GET and HEAD methods. 141 This document does not describe the results or entities returned from 142 issuing the described URLs with an HTTP GET. JSON [RFC4627] result 143 formatting and processing is described in 144 [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. 146 Additionally, resource management, provisioning and update functions 147 are out of scope for this document. Registries have various and 148 divergent methods covering these functions, and it is unlikely a 149 uniform approach for these functions will ever be possible. 151 HTTP contains mechanisms for servers to authenticate clients and for 152 clients to authenticate servers (from which authorization schemes may 153 be built) so such mechanisms are not described in this document. 154 Policy, provisioning, and processing of authentication and 155 authorization are out-of-scope for this document as deployments will 156 have to make choices based on local criteria. Specified 157 authentication mechanisms MUST use HTTP. 159 3. Path Segment Specification 161 The uniform patterns start with a base URL [RFC3986] specified by 162 each registry or any other service provider offering this service. 163 The base URL is followed by a resource-type-specific path segment. 164 The base URL may contain its own path segments (e.g. http:// 165 example.com/... or http://example.com/rdap/... ). The characters 166 used to form a path segment are limited to those that can be used to 167 form a URI as specified in RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. 169 3.1. Lookup Path Segment Specification 171 The resource type path segments for exact match lookup are: 173 o 'ip': Used to identify IP networks and associated data referenced 174 using either an IPv4 or IPv6 address. 175 o 'autnum': Used to identify autonomous system registrations and 176 associated data referenced using an AS Plain autonomous system 177 number. 178 o 'domain': Used to identify reverse DNS (RIR) or domain name (DNR) 179 information and associated data referenced using a fully-qualified 180 domain name. 181 o 'nameserver': Used to identify a name server information query 182 using a host name. 183 o 'entity': Used to identify an entity information query using a 184 string identifier. 186 3.1.1. IP Network Path Segment Specification 188 Syntax: ip/ or ip// 190 Queries for information about IP networks are of the form /ip/XXX/... 191 or /ip/XXX/YY/... where the path segment following 'ip' is either an 192 IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address (i.e. XXX) or an IPv4 or 193 IPv6 CIDR [RFC4632] notation address block (i.e. XXX/YY). 195 Semantically, the simpler form using the address can be thought of as 196 a CIDR block with a bitmask length of 32 for IPv4 and a bitmask 197 length of 128 for IPv6. A given specific address or CIDR may fall 198 within multiple IP networks in a hierarchy of networks, therefore 199 this query targets the "most-specific" or smallest IP network which 200 completely encompasses it in a hierarchy of IP networks. 202 The IPv4 and IPv6 address formats supported in this query are 203 described in section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986], as IPv4address and 204 IPv6address ABNF definitions. Any valid IPv6 text address format 205 [RFC4291] can be used, compressed or not compressed. The restricted 206 rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are 207 not mandatory. However, the zone id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in 208 this context and therefore prohibited. 210 This is an example URL for the most specific network containing 211 192.0.2.0: 213 /ip/192.0.2.0 215 This is an example of a URL the most specific network containing 216 192.0.2.0/24: 218 /ip/192.0.2.0/24 220 This is an example URL for the most specific network containing 221 2001:db8:1:1::1: 223 /ip/2001:db8:1:1::1 225 3.1.2. Autonomous System Path Segment Specification 227 Syntax: autnum/ 229 Queries for information regarding autonomous system number 230 registrations are of the form /autnum/XXX/... where XXX is an asplain 231 autonomous system number [RFC5396]. In some registries, registration 232 of autonomous system numbers is done on an individual number basis, 233 while other registries may register blocks of autonomous system 234 numbers. The semantics of this query are such that if a number falls 235 within a range of registered blocks, the target of the query is the 236 block registration, and that individual number registrations are 237 considered a block of numbers with a size of 1. 239 For example, to find information on autonomous system number 65551, 240 the following path would be used: 242 /autnum/65551 243 The following path would be used to find information on 4-byte 244 autonomous system number 65538: 246 /autnum/65538 248 3.1.3. Domain Path Segment Specification 250 Syntax: domain/ 252 Queries for domain information are of the form /domain/XXXX/..., 253 where XXXX is a fully-qualified domain name [RFC4343] in either the 254 in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zones (for RIRs) or a fully-qualified domain 255 name in a zone administered by the server operator (for DNRs). 256 Internationalized domain names represented in either A-label or 257 U-label format [RFC5890] are also valid domain names. IDN labels 258 SHOULD NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels. 260 If the client sends the server an IDN in U-label format, servers that 261 support IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform 262 IDNA processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server 263 should perform an exact match lookup using the A-label. 265 The following path would be used to find information describing the 266 zone serving the network 192.0.2/24: 268 /domain/2.0.192.in-addr.arpa 270 The following path would be used to find information describing the 271 zone serving the network 2001:db8:1::/48: 273 /domain/1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa 275 The following path would be used to find information for the 276 example.com domain name: 278 /domain/example.com 280 The following path would be used to find information for the 281 xn--xemple-9ua.example IDN: 283 /domain/xn--xemple-9ua.example 285 3.1.4. Name Server Path Segment Specification 287 Syntax: nameserver/ 289 The parameter represents a fully qualified name as 290 specified in RFC 952 [RFC0952] and RFC 1123 [RFC1123]. 292 Internationalized names represented in either A-label or U-label 293 format [RFC5890] are also valid name server names. IDN labels SHOULD 294 NOT be represented as a mixture of A-labels and U-labels. 296 If the client sends the server an IDN in U-label format, servers that 297 support IDNs MUST convert the IDN into A-label format and perform 298 IDNA processing as specified in RFC 5891 [RFC5891]. The server 299 should perform an exact match lookup using the A-label. 301 The following path would be used to find information for the 302 ns1.example.com name server: 304 /nameserver/ns1.example.com 306 The following path would be used to find information for the 307 ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.example name server: 309 /nameserver/ns1.xn--xemple-9ua.example 311 3.1.5. Entity Path Segment Specification 313 Syntax: entity/ 315 The parameter represents an entity (such as a contact, 316 registrant, or registrar) identifier. For example, for some DNRs 317 contact identifiers are specified in RFC 5730 [RFC5730] and RFC 5733 318 [RFC5733]. 320 The following path would be used to find information for the entity 321 associated with handle CID-4005: 323 /entity/CID-4005 325 3.1.6. Help Path Segment Specification 327 Syntax: help 329 The help path segment can be used to request helpful information 330 (command syntax, terms of service, privacy policy, rate limiting 331 policy, supported authentication methods, supported extensions, 332 technical support contact, etc.) from an RDAP server. The response 333 to "help" should provide basic information that a client needs to 334 successfully use the service. The following path would be used to 335 return "help" information: 337 /help 339 3.2. Search Path Segment Specification 341 The resource type path segments for search are: 343 o 'domains': Used to identify a domain name information search using 344 a pattern to match a fully-qualified domain name. 345 o 'nameservers': Used to identify a name server information search 346 using a pattern to match a host name. 347 o 'entities': Used to identify an entity information search using a 348 pattern to match a string identifier. 350 RDAP search path segments are formed using a concatenation of the 351 plural form of the object being searched for, a forward slash 352 character ('/', ASCII value 0x002F), and an HTTP query string. The 353 HTTP query string is formed using a concatenation of the question 354 mark character ('?', ASCII value 0x003F), the JSON object value 355 associated with the object being searched for, the equal sign 356 character ('=', ASCII value 0x003D), and the search pattern. For the 357 domain and entity objects described in this document the plural 358 object forms are "domains" and "entities". 360 3.2.1. Domain Search 362 Syntax: domains/?ldhName= 364 Searches for domain information are of the form /domains/ 365 ?ldhName=XXXX, where XXXX is a search pattern representing a domain 366 name in "letters, digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone 367 administered by the server operator of a DNR. The following path 368 would be used to find DNR information for domain names matching the 369 "example*.com" pattern: 371 /domains/?ldhName=example*.com 373 Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in U-label format [RFC5890] can 374 also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these 375 names are of the form /domains/?unicodeName=XXXX, where XXXX is a 376 search pattern representing a domain name in U-label format 377 [RFC5890]. 379 3.2.2. Name Server Search 381 Syntax: nameservers/?ldhName= 383 Searches for name server information are of the form /nameservers/ 384 ?ldhName=XXXX, where XXXX is a search pattern representing a host 385 name in "letters, digits, hyphen" format [RFC5890] in a zone 386 administered by the server operator of a DNR. The following path 387 would be used to find DNR information for name server names matching 388 the "ns1.example*.com" pattern: 390 /nameservers/?ldhName=ns1.example*.com 392 Internationalized name server names in U-label format [RFC5890] can 393 also be used as search patterns (see Section 4). Searches for these 394 names are of the form /nameservers/?unicodeName=XXXX, where XXXX is a 395 search pattern representing a name server name in U-label format 396 [RFC5890]. 398 3.2.3. Entity Search 400 Syntax: entities/?fn= 402 Searches for entity information are of the form /entities/?fn=XXXX, 403 where XXXX is a search pattern representing an entity name as 404 specified in Section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. The 405 following path would be used to find information for entity names 406 matching the "Bobby Joe*" pattern. 408 /entities/?fn=Bobby%20Joe* 410 URLs MUST be properly encoded according to the rules of [RFC3986]. 411 In the example above, "Bobby Joe*" is encoded to "Bobby%20Joe*". 413 4. Search Processing 415 Partial string searching uses the asterisk ('*', ASCII value 0x002A) 416 character to match zero or more trailing characters. Additional 417 pattern matching processing is beyond the scope of this 418 specification. 420 If a server receives a search request but cannot process the request 421 because it does not support a particular style of partial match 422 searching, it SHOULD return an HTTP 422 [RFC4918] error. When 423 returning a 422 error, the server MAY also return an error response 424 body as specified in Section 12 of [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] if 425 the requested media type is one that is specified in 426 [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. 428 Because Unicode characters may be combined with another Unicode 429 character or characters, partial matching is not feasible across 430 combinations of Unicode characters. Servers SHOULD NOT partially 431 match combinations of Unicode characters where a Unicode character 432 may be legally combined with another Unicode character or characters. 433 Clients MUST NOT issue a partial match search of Unicode characters 434 where a Unicode character may be legally combined with another 435 Unicode character or characters. Partial match searches with 436 incomplete combinations of characters where a character must be 437 combined with another character or characters are invalid. Partial 438 match searches with characters that may be combined with another 439 character or characters are to be considered non-combined characters 440 (that is, if character x maybe combined with character y but 441 character y is not submitted in the search string then character x is 442 a complete character and no combinations of character x are to 443 searched). 445 Because Unicode characters may be combined with another Unicode 446 character or characters, partial matching requires that a server 447 maintain a list of valid character combinations to be considered a 448 match. When comparing DNS U-labels, servers SHOULD use the code 449 points specified in [RFC5892] to determine partial matches. When 450 comparing entity names, servers SHOULD use the normalization rules 451 and code points specified by [I-D.ietf-precis-nickname] to determine 452 partial matches. 454 Clients SHOULD NOT submit search requests with partial matching for 455 DNS A-labels starting with 'xn--'. A-labels of this type represent 456 an encoding that can only be reconstructed properly when the label is 457 complete. 459 5. Extensibility 461 This document describes path segment specifications for a limited 462 number of objects commonly registered in both RIRs and DNRs. It does 463 not attempt to describe path segments for all of the objects 464 registered in all registries. Custom path segments can be created 465 for objects not specified here using the process described in 466 Section TBD of "Using HTTP for RESTful Whois Services by Internet 467 Registries" [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. 469 Custom path segments can be created by prefixing the segment with a 470 unique identifier followed by an underscore character (0x5F). For 471 example, a custom entity path segment could be created by prefixing 472 "entity" with "custom_", producing "custom_entity". Servers MUST 473 return an appropriate failure status code for a request with an 474 unrecognized path segment. 476 6. Internationalization Considerations 478 There is value in supporting the ability to submit either a U-label 479 (Unicode form of an IDN label) or an A-label (ASCII form of an IDN 480 label) as a query argument to an RDAP service. Clients capable of 481 processing non-ASCII characters may prefer a U-label since this is 482 more visually recognizable and familiar than A-label strings, but 483 clients using programmatic interfaces might find it easier to submit 484 and display A-labels if they are unable to input U-labels with their 485 keyboard configuration. Both query forms are acceptable. 487 Internationalized domain and name server names can contain character 488 variants and variant labels as described in RFC 4290 [RFC4290]. 489 Clients that support queries for internationalized domain and name 490 server names MUST accept service provider responses that describe 491 variants as specified in "JSON Responses for the Registration Data 492 Access Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]. 494 7. IANA Considerations 496 This document does not specify any IANA actions. 498 8. Security Considerations 500 Security services for the operations specified in this document are 501 described in "Security Services for the Registration Data Access 502 Protocol" [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]. 504 Search functionality typically requires more server resources (such 505 as memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to basic 506 lookup functionality. This increases the risk of server resource 507 exhaustion and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. This risk 508 can be mitigated by developing and implementing controls to restrict 509 search functionality to identified and authorized clients. If those 510 clients behave badly, their search privileges can be suspended or 511 revoked. Rate limiting as described in Section 5.5 of "Using the 512 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) with HTTP" 513 [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] can also be used to control the rate of 514 received search requests. Server operators can also reduce their 515 risk by restricting the amount of information returned in response to 516 a search request. 518 9. Acknowledgements 520 This document is derived from original work on RIR query formats 521 developed by Byron J. Ellacott of APNIC, Arturo L. Servin of LACNIC, 522 Kaveh Ranjbar of the RIPE NCC, and Andrew L. Newton of ARIN. 523 Additionally, this document incorporates DNR query formats originally 524 described by Francisco Arias and Steve Sheng of ICANN and Scott 525 Hollenbeck of Verisign. 527 The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for 528 their contributions to this document: Francisco Arias, Marc Blanchet, 529 Ernie Dainow, Jean-Philippe Dionne, Behnam Esfahbod, Edward Lewis, 530 and John Levine. 532 10. References 534 10.1. Normative References 536 [I-D.ietf-precis-nickname] 537 Saint-Andre, P., "Preparation and Comparison of 538 Nicknames", draft-ietf-precis-nickname-06 (work in 539 progress), July 2013. 541 [I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response] 542 Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 543 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf- 544 weirds-json-response-04 (work in progress), June 2013. 546 [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec] 547 Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 548 Registration Data Access Protocol", draft-ietf-weirds- 549 rdap-sec-04 (work in progress), June 2013. 551 [I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http] 552 Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the 553 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf- 554 weirds-using-http-07 (work in progress), July 2013. 556 [RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet 557 host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985. 559 [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application 560 and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. 562 [RFC1166] Kirkpatrick, S., Stahl, M., and M. Recker, "Internet 563 numbers", RFC 1166, July 1990. 565 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 566 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 568 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 569 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 570 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 572 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 573 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 574 3986, January 2005. 576 [RFC4290] Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of 577 Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290, December 578 2005. 580 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 581 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 583 [RFC4343] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity 584 Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006. 586 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 587 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 588 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 590 [RFC4918] Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed 591 Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007. 593 [RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of 594 Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, December 2008. 596 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", 597 STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009. 599 [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 600 Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, August 2009. 602 [RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for 603 Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", 604 RFC 5890, August 2010. 606 [RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in 607 Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010. 609 [RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and 610 Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)", 611 RFC 5892, August 2010. 613 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 614 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 616 10.2. Informative References 618 [REST] Fielding, R. and R. Taylor, "Principled Design of the 619 Modern Web Architecture", ACM Transactions on Internet 620 Technology Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2002. 622 [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, 623 September 2004. 625 [RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and 626 B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, 627 March 2005. 629 [RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for 630 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006. 632 Appendix A. Change Log 634 Initial -00: Adopted as working group document. 635 -01: Added "Conventions Used in This Document" section. Added 636 normative reference to draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec and some 637 wrapping text in the Security Considerations section. 638 -02: Removed "unified" from the title. Rewrote the last paragraph 639 of section 2. Edited the first paragraph of section 3 to more 640 clearly note that only one path segement is provided. Added 641 "bitmask" to "length" in section 3.1. Changed "lowest IP network" 642 to "smallest IP network" in section 3.1. Added "asplain" to the 643 description of autonomous system numbers in section 3.2. Minor 644 change from "semantics is" to "semantics are" in section 3.2. 645 Changed the last sentence in section 4 to more clearly specify 646 error response behavior. Added acknowledgements. Added a 647 paragraph in the introduction regarding future IETF standards and 648 extensibility. 649 -03: Changed 'query' to 'lookup' in document title to better 650 describe the 'exact match lookup' purpose of this document. 651 Included a multitude of minor additions and clarifications 652 provided by Marc Blanchet and Jean-Philippe Dionne. Modified the 653 domain and name server sections to include support for IDN 654 U-labels. 655 -04: Updated the domain and name server sections to use .example IDN 656 U-labels. Added text to note that mixed IDN labels SHOULD NOT be 657 used. Fixed broken sentences in Section 6. 658 -05: Added "help" path segment. 659 -06: Added search text and removed or edited old search text. 661 Authors' Addresses 663 Andrew Lee Newton 664 American Registry for Internet Numbers 665 3635 Concorde Parkway 666 Chantilly, VA 20151 667 US 669 Email: andy@arin.net 670 URI: http://www.arin.net 671 Scott Hollenbeck 672 Verisign Labs 673 12061 Bluemont Way 674 Reston, VA 20190 675 US 677 Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com 678 URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/