idnits 2.17.1 draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 31, 2019) is 1906 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7230 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110, RFC 9112) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7482 (Obsoleted by RFC 9082) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7483 (Obsoleted by RFC 9083) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo 3 Internet-Draft M. Martinelli 4 Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it 5 Expires: August 4, 2019 January 31, 2019 7 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities 8 draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-reverse-search-04 10 Abstract 12 The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include query 13 capabilities to find the list of domains related to a set of entities 14 matching a given search pattern. Even if such capabilities, commonly 15 referred as reverse search, respond to some needs not yet readily 16 fulfilled by the current Whois protocol, they have raised concerns 17 from two perspectives: server processing impact and data privacy. 18 Anyway, the impact of the reverse queries on RDAP servers processing 19 is the same as the standard searches and it can be reduced by 20 implementing policies to deal with large result sets, while data 21 privacy risks can be prevented by RDAP access control 22 functionalities. This document describes RDAP query extensions that 23 allow clients to request a reverse search based on the domains- 24 entities relationship. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2019. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.1. JSON in URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 1. Introduction 79 Reverse Whois is a service provided by many web applications that 80 allow users to find domain names owned by an individual or a company 81 starting from the owner details, such as name and email. Even if it 82 has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g. uncovering 83 trademark infringements, detecting cybercrime cases), its 84 availability as a standardised Whois capability has been objected for 85 two main reasons, which now don't seem to conflict with an RDAP 86 implementation. 88 The first objection has been caused by the potential risks of privacy 89 violation. However, TLDs community is considering a new generation 90 of Registration Directory Services ([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2]), which 91 provide access to sensitive data under some permissible purposes and 92 according to adequate policies to enforce the requestor 93 accreditation, authentication, authorization, and terms and 94 conditions of data use. It is well known that such security policies 95 are not implemented in Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP 96 ([RFC7481]). Therefore, RDAP permits a reverse search implementation 97 complying with privacy protection principles. 99 Another objection to the implementation of a reverse search 100 capability has been connected with its impact on server processing. 101 Since RDAP supports search queries, the impact of both standard and 102 reverse searches is equivalent and can be mitigated by servers 103 adopting ad hoc strategies. Furthermore, reverse search is almost 104 always performed by specifying an entity role (e.g. registrant, 105 technical contact) and this can contribute to restricting the result 106 set. 108 Reverse searches, such as finding the list of domain names associated 109 with contacts, nameservers or DNSSEC keys, may be useful to 110 registrars as well. Usually, registries adopt out-of-band mechanisms 111 to provide results to registrars asking for reverse searches on their 112 domains. Possible reasons of such requests are: 114 o the loss of synchronization between the registrar database and the 115 registry database; 117 o the need of such data to perform massive EPP ([RFC5730]) updates 118 (e.g. changing the contacts of a set of domains, etc.). 120 Currently, RDAP does not provide any way for a client to search for 121 the collection of domains associated with an entity ([RFC7482]). A 122 query (lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities 123 related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar, 124 administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation 125 is not allowed. Only reverse searches to find the collection of 126 domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested. 127 Since entities can be in relation with all RDAP objects ([RFC7483]), 128 the availability of a reverse search can be common to all RDAP query 129 paths. 131 The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP 132 query capabilities to enable reverse search based on the domains- 133 entities relationship (the classic Reverse Whois scenario). The 134 extension is implemented by adding new path segments (i.e. search 135 paths) and using a RESTful web service ([REST]). The service is 136 implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) ([RFC7230]) 137 and the conventions described in RFC 7480 ([RFC7480]). 139 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 141 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 142 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 143 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 145 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification 147 The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined 148 in RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). The search paths are: 150 Syntax: domains?entityHandle= 152 Syntax: domains?entityFn= 154 Syntax: domains?entityEmail= 156 Syntax: domains?entityAddr= 158 The reverse search pattern is a JSON ([RFC8259]) object including two 159 members: "value" and "role". The "value" member represents the 160 search pattern to be applied to the corresponding entity field and 161 can be a JSON type primitive or object. The "role" member is a 162 string whose possible values are those detailed in Section 10.2.4 of 163 RFC 7483 ([RFC7483]). The former is REQUIRED while the latter is 164 OPTIONAL to allow RDAP servers to provide reverse search capabilities 165 without specifying any role. 167 The search patterns corresponding to the "value" in the first two 168 cases (Figure 1) are the same as specified in paragraph Section 3.2.3 169 of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). 171 domains?entityHandle={"value":"CID-40*","role":"registrant"} 173 domains?entityFn={"value":"Bobby*","role":"registrant"} 175 Figure 1: Examples of RDAP queries to find all domains related to a 176 registrant whose handle matches "CID-40*" and whose formatted name 177 matches "Bobby*" 179 The last two reverse searches are considered by gTLD stakeholders 180 very useful to improve RDS searchability ([ICANN-RDS1], [ICANN-RA]). 182 Searches for domains by related entity email are specified using this 183 form: 185 domains?entityEmail={"value":"XXXX","role":"ZZZZ"} 187 where XXXX is a search pattern representing an email address as 188 defined in RFC 5322 ([RFC5322]). 190 Searches for domains by related entity postal address are specified 191 using this form: 193 domains?entityAddr={"value":YYYY,"role":"ZZZZ"} 195 where YYYY is a JSON object containing the information described in 196 Section 2.4 of RFC 5733 ([RFC5733]), respectively: "street", "city", 197 "sp", "pc" and "cc" (Figure 2). All the members of the postal 198 address object are OPTIONAL but at least one is REQUIRED. The 199 constraints on the members are implicitly joined by AND. 201 domains?entityAddr={"value":{"cc":"CA","city":"Sydney"},"role":"registrant"} 203 Figure 2: Example of a RDAP query to find all domains related to a 204 registrant whose postal address contains the country code equals to 205 "CA" and the city equals to "Sydney" 207 3. Implementation Considerations 209 The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible. 210 The search paths "handle" and "fn" are used as standard paths to 211 search for entities. With regards to the last two reverse searches, 212 both email and postal address information are usually required by the 213 registries but, while the former is usually mapped onto a DBMS 214 indexed field, the latter is mapped onto a combination of non-indexed 215 fields. As a consequence while the former should not significantly 216 decrease the performance, the latter might have an impact on server 217 processing. Anyway, this impact is evaluated to be the same as other 218 query capabilities already presented in RDAP (e.g. wildcard prefixed 219 search pattern) so the risks to generate huge result sets are the 220 same as those related to other standard searches and can be mitigated 221 by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting search 222 functionalities, limiting the rate of search requests according to 223 the user profile, truncating and paging the results, returning 224 partial responses). 226 3.1. JSON in URLs 228 Many web services, including RDAP, rely on the HTTP GET method to 229 take advantage from some of its features: 231 o GET requests can be cached; 232 o GET requests remain in the browser history; 233 o GET requests can be bookmarked. 235 Sometimes, it happens that such advantages should be combined with 236 the requirement to pass objects and arrays in the query string. JSON 237 is the best candidate as data interchange format, but it contains 238 some characters that are forbidden from appearing in a URL. Anyway, 239 escaping the invalid characters is not an issue because, on the 240 client side, modern browsers automatically encode URLs and, on the 241 server side, several URL encoding/decoding libraries for all web 242 development programming languages are available. The downside of URL 243 encoding is that it can make a pretty long URL, which, depending on 244 the initial length and the number of invalid characters, might exceed 245 the practical limit of web browsers (i.e. 2,000 characters). 247 Other solutions to pass a JSON expression in a URL could be: 249 o converting JSON to Base64 ([RFC4648]), but binary data are 250 unreadable; 252 o using a JSON variation that complies with URL specifications and 253 maintains readability like Rison ([RISON]), URLON ([URLON]) or 254 JSURL ([JSURL]). 256 The extensions proposed in this document rely on URL encoding because 257 it is widely supported and the risk to exceed the maximum URL length 258 is considered to be very unlikely in RDAP. 260 4. Implementation Status 262 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 263 to publication as an RFC. 265 This section records the status of known implementations of the 266 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 267 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 268 ([RFC7942]). The description of implementations in this section is 269 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 270 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 271 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 272 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 273 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 274 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 275 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 276 other implementations may exist. 278 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 279 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 280 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 281 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 282 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 283 they see fit". 285 4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 287 Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics 288 of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it 289 Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ 290 Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries 291 using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. 292 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 293 implementation. 294 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 295 described in this specification. 296 Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 298 5. Privacy Considerations 300 The use of the capability described in this document SHOULD be 301 compliant with the rules about privacy protection each RDAP provider 302 is subject to. Sensitive registration data SHOULD be protected and 303 accessible for permissible purposes only. Therefore, it is 304 recommended that RDAP servers provide reverse search only to those 305 requestors who are authorized according to a lawful basis. Some 306 potential users of this capability include registrars searching for 307 their own domains and operators in the exercise of an official 308 authority or performing a specific task in the public interest that 309 is set out in law. Another scenario consists of permitting reverse 310 searches, which take into account only those entities that have 311 previously given the explicit consent for publishing and processing 312 their personal data. 314 6. Security Considerations 316 Security services required to provide controlled access to the 317 operations specified in this document are described in RFC 7481 318 ([RFC7481]). 320 7. IANA Considerations 322 This document has no actions for IANA. 324 8. Acknowledgements 326 The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Francisco 327 Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their contribution to 328 this document. 330 9. References 332 9.1. Normative References 334 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 335 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 336 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 337 . 339 [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, 340 DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004, 341 . 343 [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, 344 DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, 345 . 347 [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", 348 STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, 349 . 351 [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 352 Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, 353 August 2009, . 355 [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer 356 Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", 357 RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, 358 . 360 [RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the 361 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, 362 DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015, 363 . 365 [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 366 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, 367 DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, 368 . 370 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 371 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 372 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 373 . 375 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 376 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 377 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 378 . 380 [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 381 Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, 382 DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, 383 . 385 9.2. Informative References 387 [ICANN-RA] 388 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, 389 "Registry Agreement", July 2017, 390 . 393 [ICANN-RDS1] 394 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, 395 "Final Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD 396 Directory Services: A Next-Generation Registration 397 Directory Service (RDS)", June 2014, 398 . 401 [ICANN-RDS2] 402 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, 403 "Final Issue Report on a Next-Generation gTLD RDS to 404 Replace WHOIS", October 2015, 405 . 408 [JSURL] github.com, "JSURL", 2016, 409 . 411 [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of 412 Network-based Software Architectures", 2000, 413 . 416 [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data 417 Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006, 418 . 420 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 421 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 422 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 423 . 425 [RISON] github.com, "Rison - Compact Data in URIs", 2017, 426 . 428 [URLON] github.com, "URL Object Notation", 2017, 429 . 431 Appendix A. Change Log 433 00: Initial version. 434 01: Revised some sentences and references. 435 02: Added "entityEmail" and "entityAddr" path segments. Removed 436 "entityRole" path segment. Revised "Acknowledgements" section. 437 03: Added "JSON in URLs" section. 438 04: Revised some sentences in "Introduction" section. Added 439 "Privacy Considerations" section. 441 Authors' Addresses 443 Mario Loffredo 444 IIT-CNR/Registro.it 445 Via Moruzzi,1 446 Pisa 56124 447 IT 449 Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 450 URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it 452 Maurizio Martinelli 453 IIT-CNR/Registro.it 454 Via Moruzzi,1 455 Pisa 56124 456 IT 458 Email: maurizio.martinelli@iit.cnr.it 459 URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it