GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:bcp:bcp221

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hollenbeck Request for Comments: 8521 Verisign Labs BCP: 221 A. Newton Updates: 7484 ARIN Category: Best Current Practice November 2018 ISSN: 2070-1721

      Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging

Abstract

 The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that
 can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing
 domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries.  The
 method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for
 processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries.  This
 limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query
 types are typically unstructured.  This document updates RFC 7484 by
 describing an operational practice that can be used to add structure
 to RDAP identifiers and that makes it possible to identify the
 authoritative server for additional RDAP queries.

Status of This Memo

 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8521.

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 2.  Object Naming Practice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags . . . . .   9
   3.1.  Registration Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 4.  RDAP Conformance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.1.  Bootstrap Service Registry Structure  . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.2.  RDAP Extensions Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

1. Introduction

 The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method
 [RFC7484] that can be used to identify the authoritative server for
 processing domain name, IP address, and Autonomous System Number
 (ASN) queries.  This method works because each of these data elements
 is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the
 element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP
 service provider.  For example, domain names include labels (such as
 "com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service
 providers.
 As noted in Section 9 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484], the method does not
 describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing
 entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using
 certain search patterns.  This limitation exists because the
 identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a
 way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific
 service provider.  This document describes an operational practice
 that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers and makes it
 possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP
 queries.
 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
 capitals, as shown here.

2. Object Naming Practice

 Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it
 possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP
 query using the method described in RFC 7484 [RFC7484].  A service
 provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode HYPHEN-MINUS
 character "-" (U+002D, described as an "unreserved" character in RFC
 3986 [RFC3986]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the
 service provider.  For example, a tag for a service provider
 identified by the string value "ARIN" is represented as "-ARIN".
 In combination with the rdapConformance attribute described in
 Section 4, service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP
 query object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative
 server for processing an RDAP query.  Building on the example from
 Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482], an RDAP entity handle can be
 constructed to allow an RDAP client to bootstrap an entity query.

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

 The following identifier is used to find information for the entity
 associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN":
    XXXX-ARIN
 Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this
 identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier
 elements.  Handles can themselves contain HYPHEN-MINUS characters;
 the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN-
 MINUS character in the tagged identifier.  The service provider
 identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry.
 The base URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP
 query path segment.  For example, if the base RDAP URL
 "https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service provider
 "YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged entity
 identifier "XXXX-YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service
 provider ("YYYY") identifiers.  The service provider identifier
 "YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP
 URL "https://example.com/rdap/".  The RDAP query URL is formed using
 the base RDAP URL and entity path segment described in Section 3.1.5
 of RFC 7482 [RFC7482] and using "XXXX-YYY" as the value of the handle
 identifier.  The complete RDAP query URL becomes
 "https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY".
 Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured
 potential query identifiers in RDAP responses.  Consider these elided
 examples ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from
 Section 5.3 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483] in which the handle identifiers
 have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC",
 respectively:
 {
   "objectClassName" : "domain",
   "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
   "ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
   "nameservers" :
   [
     ...
   ],
   "secureDNS":
   {
     ...
   },
   "remarks" :
   [
     ...
   ],
   "links" :

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

   [
     ...
   ],
   "events" :
   [
     ...
   ],
   "entities" :
   [
     {
       "objectClassName" : "entity",
       "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
       "vcardArray":
       [
         ...
       ],
       "roles" : [ "registrant" ],
       "remarks" :
       [
         ...
       ],
       "links" :
       [
         ...
       ],
       "events" :
       [
         ...
       ]
     }
   ],
   "network" :
   {
     "objectClassName" : "ip network",
     "handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
     "startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
     "endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
     "ipVersion" : "v4",
     "name": "NET-RTR-1",
     "type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
     "country" : "AU",
     "parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
     "status" : [ "active" ]
   }
 }
                               Figure 1

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

 {
   "objectClassName" : "domain",
   "handle" : "XXXX-YYY-DNR",
   "ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
   "unicodeName" : "foo.example",
   "variants" :
   [
     ...
   ],
   "status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
   "publicIds":
   [
     ...
   ],
   "nameservers" :
   [
     {
       "objectClassName" : "nameserver",
       "handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
       "ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
       "status" : [ "active" ],
       "ipAddresses" :
       {
         ...
       },
       "remarks" :
       [
         ...
       ],
       "links" :
       [
         ...
       ],
       "events" :
       [
         ...
       ]
     },
     {
       "objectClassName" : "nameserver",
       "handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
       "ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
       "status" : [ "active" ],
       "ipAddresses" :
       {
         ...
       },
       "remarks" :

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

       [
         ...
       ],
       "links" :
       [
         ...
       ],
       "events" :
       [
         ...
       ]
     }
    ],
    "secureDNS":
    {
      ...
    },
    "remarks" :
    [
      ...
    ],
    "links" :
    [
      ...
    ],
    "port43" : "whois.example.net",
    "events" :
    [
      ...
    ],
    "entities" :
    [
      {
        "objectClassName" : "entity",
        "handle" : "XXXX-ABC",
        "vcardArray":
        [
          ...
        ],
        "status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
        "roles" : [ "registrant" ],
        "remarks" :
        [
          ...
        ],
        "links" :
        [
          ...

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

        ],
        "events" :
        [
          ...
        ]
      }
    ]
 }
                               Figure 2
 As described in Section 5 of RFC 7483 [RFC7483], RDAP responses can
 contain "self" links.  Service provider tags and self references
 SHOULD be consistent.  If they are inconsistent, the service provider
 tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to
 identify a service provider.
 There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN-
 MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator
 purposes in an entity handle.  This could lead to a client mistakenly
 assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and
 that the text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider
 identifier.  A client that queries the IANA registry for what they
 assume is a valid service provider will likely receive an unexpected,
 invalid result.  As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character
 as a service provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding an
 rdapConformance value to query responses as described in Section 4.
 The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons:
 1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it
 avoids collision with URI-reserved characters.  The list of
 unreserved characters specified in Section 2.3 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986]
 provided multiple options for consideration:
    unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
 ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly
 used in entity handles for non-separator purposes.  HYPHEN-MINUS is
 commonly used as a separator, and recognition of this practice will
 reduce implementation requirements and operational risk.  The
 remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used
 as separators in entity handles.

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

3. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags

 The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is
 represented using the structure specified in Section 3 of RFC 7484
 [RFC7484].  The JSON output of this registry contains contact
 information for the registered service provider identifiers,
 alphanumeric identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, and
 base RDAP service URLs as shown in this example.

{

"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "RDAP bootstrap file for service provider object tags",
"services": [
  [
    ["contact@example.com"],
    ["YYYY"],
    [
      "https://example.com/rdap/"
    ]
  ],
  [
    ["contact@example.org"],
    ["ZZ54"],
    [
      "http://rdap.example.org/"
    ]
  ],
  [
    ["contact@example.net"],
    ["1754"],
    [
      "https://example.net/rdap/",
      "http://example.net/rdap/"
    ]
  ]
]

}

                               Figure 3
 Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix
 portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in Section 4.2
 of RFC 5730 [RFC5730].

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

3.1. Registration Procedure

 The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come
 First Served" policy defined in RFC 8126 [RFC8126].  Provider
 identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request.
 Registration requests include an email address to be associated with
 the registered service provider identifier, the requested service
 provider identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an
 identifier), and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the
 service provider identifier.

4. RDAP Conformance

 RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST
 indicate conformance with this specification by including an
 rdapConformance [RFC7483] value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0".  The
 information needed to register this value in the "RDAP Extensions"
 registry is described in Section 5.2.
 The following is an example rdapConformance structure with the
 extension specified.
           "rdapConformance" :
           [
             "rdap_level_0",
             "rdap_objectTag_level_0"
           ]
                               Figure 4

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

5. IANA Considerations

 IANA has created the RDAP "Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider
 Object Tags" listed below and made it available as a JSON object.
 The contents of this registry are described in Section 3; the formal
 syntax is specified in Section 10 of RFC 7484 [RFC7484].

5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure

 Entries in this registry contain the following information:
 o  an email address that identifies a contact associated with the
    registered RDAP service provider value.
 o  an alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider
    being registered.
 o  one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
    registration.  The URLs are expected to supply the same data, but
    they can differ in scheme or other components as required by the
    service operator.

5.2. RDAP Extensions Registry

 IANA has registered the following value in the "RDAP Extensions"
 registry:
    Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag
    Registry operator: Any
    Published specification: This document
    Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
    Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for
    structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping.

6. Security Considerations

 This practice uses IANA as a well-known, centrally trusted authority
 to allow users to get RDAP data from an authoritative source, which
 reduces the risk of sending queries to non-authoritative sources and
 divulging query information to unintended parties.  Using TLS 1.2
 [RFC5246] or TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], which obsoletes TLS 1.2, to protect
 the connection to IANA allows the server to authenticate itself as
 being operated by IANA and provides integrity protection for the
 resulting referral information, as well as provides privacy
 protection via data confidentiality.  The subsequent RDAP connection
 is performed as usual and retains the same security properties of the
 RDAP protocols themselves as described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481].

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
            STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
 [RFC7484]  Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
            (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March
            2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>.
 [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
            Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
            RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
            2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
            May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2. Informative References

 [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
            Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
            RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
 [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
            (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
 [RFC7481]  Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
            Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
 [RFC7482]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
            Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 8521 RDAP Object Tagging November 2018

 [RFC7483]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
            Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
 [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
            Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
 their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
 Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz.  In addition, the authors
 would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
 operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been
 implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for
 several years.  Their experience provided significant inspiration for
 the development of this document.

Authors' Addresses

 Scott Hollenbeck
 Verisign Labs
 12061 Bluemont Way
 Reston, VA  20190
 United States of America
 Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
 URI:   http://www.verisignlabs.com/
 Andrew Lee Newton
 American Registry for Internet Numbers
 PO Box 232290
 Centreville, VA  20120
 United States of America
 Email: andy@arin.net
 URI:   http://www.arin.net

Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 13]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/bcp/bcp221.txt · Last modified: 2018/11/19 16:39 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki