GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7484

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Blanchet Request for Comments: 7484 Viagenie Category: Standards Track March 2015 ISSN: 2070-1721

     Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service

Abstract

 This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data
 Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for
 a requested scope, such as domain names, IP addresses, or Autonomous
 System numbers.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 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
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2015 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
 (http://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.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
 2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  Structure of the RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries  . . . . .   3
 4.  Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space  . . . . . .   5
 5.  Bootstrap Service Registries for Internet Numbers . . . . . .   6
   5.1.  Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space . . . .   7
   5.2.  Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space . . . .   8
   5.3.  Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space  . . . . .   9
 6.  Entity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 7.  Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 8.  Deployment and Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . .  10
 9.  Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 10. Formal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10.1.  Imported JSON Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10.2.  Registry Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12.1.  Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space  . . .  14
   12.2.  Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space  . . .  14
   12.3.  Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space . . . . .  14
   12.4.  Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space . . . .  15
 13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1. Introduction

 Querying and retrieving registration data from registries are defined
 in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) [RFC7480] [RFC7482]
 [RFC7483].  These documents do not specify where to send the queries.
 This document specifies a method to find which server is
 authoritative to answer queries for the requested scope.
 Top-Level Domains (TLDs), Autonomous System (AS) numbers, and network
 blocks are delegated by IANA to Internet registries such as TLD
 registries and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) that then issue
 further delegations and maintain information about them.  Thus, the
 bootstrap information needed by RDAP clients is best generated from
 data and processes already maintained by IANA; the relevant
 registries already exist at [ipv4reg], [ipv6reg], [asreg], and
 [domainreg].

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 Per this document, IANA has created new registries based on a JSON
 format specified in this document, herein named RDAP Bootstrap
 Service Registries.  These new registries are based on the existing
 entries of the above mentioned registries.  An RDAP client fetches
 the RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries, extracts the data, and then
 performs a match with the query data to find the authoritative
 registration data server and appropriate query base URL.

2. Conventions Used in This Document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. Structure of the RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries

 The RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries, as specified in Section 12
 below, have been made available as JSON [RFC7159] objects, which can
 be retrieved via HTTP from locations specified by IANA.  The JSON
 object for each registry contains a series of members containing
 metadata about the registry such as a version identifier, a timestamp
 of the publication date of the registry, and a description.
 Additionally, a "services" member contains the registry items
 themselves, as an array.  Each item of the array contains a second-
 level array, with two elements, each of them being a third-level
 array.
 Each element of the Services Array is a second-level array with two
 elements: in order, an Entry Array and a Service URL Array.
 The Entry Array contains all entries that have the same set of base
 RDAP URLs.  The Service URL Array contains the list of base RDAP URLs
 usable for the entries found in the Entry Array.  Elements within
 these two arrays are not sorted in any way.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 An example structure of the JSON output of a RDAP Bootstrap Service
 Registry is illustrated:
 {
     "version": "1.0",
     "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
     "description": "Some text",
     "services": [
       [
         ["entry1", "entry2", "entry3"],
         [
           "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/",
           "http://registry.example.com/myrdap/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["entry4"],
         [
           "http://example.org/"
         ]
       ]
     ]
 }
 The formal syntax is described in Section 10.
 The "version" corresponds to the format version of the registry.
 This specification defines version "1.0".
 The syntax of the "publication" value conforms to the Internet date/
 time format [RFC3339].  The value is the latest update date of the
 registry by IANA.
 The optional "description" string can contain a comment regarding the
 content of the bootstrap object.
 Per [RFC7258], in each array of base RDAP URLs, the secure versions
 of the transport protocol SHOULD be preferred and tried first.  For
 example, if the base RDAP URLs array contains both HTTPS and HTTP
 URLs, the bootstrap client SHOULD try the HTTPS version first.
 Base RDAP URLs MUST have a trailing "/" character because they are
 concatenated to the various segments defined in [RFC7482].
 JSON names MUST follow the format recommendations of [RFC7480].  Any
 unrecognized JSON object properties or values MUST be ignored by
 implementations.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 Internationalized Domain Name labels used as entries or base RDAP
 URLs in the registries defined in this document MUST be only
 represented using their A-label form as defined in [RFC5890].
 All Domain Name labels used as entries or base RDAP URLs in the
 registries defined in this document MUST be only represented in
 lowercase.

4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space

 The JSON output of this registry contains domain label entries
 attached to the root, grouped by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this
 example.
 {
     "version": "1.0",
     "publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
     "description": "Some text",
     "services": [
       [
         ["net", "com"],
         [
           "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["org", "mytld"],
         [
           "http://example.org/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["xn--zckzah"],
         [
           "https://example.net/rdapxn--zckzah/",
           "http://example.net/rdapxn--zckzah/"
         ]
       ]
     ]
 }
 The domain name's authoritative registration data service is found by
 doing the label-wise longest match of the target domain name with the
 domain values in the Entry Arrays in the IANA Bootstrap Service
 Registry for Domain Name Space.  The match is done per label, from
 right to left.  If the longest match results in multiple entries,
 then those entries are considered equivalent.  The values contained

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 in the Service URL Array of the matching second-level array are the
 valid base RDAP URLs as described in [RFC7482].
 For example, a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches the com
 entry in one of the arrays of the registry.  The base RDAP URL for
 this query is then taken from the second element of the array, which
 is an array of base RDAP URLs valid for this entry.  The client
 chooses one of the base URLs from this array; in this example, it
 chooses the only one available, "https://registry.example.com/
 myrdap/".  The segment specified in [RFC7482] is then appended to the
 base URL to complete the query.  The complete query is then
 "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/domain/a.b.example.com".
 If a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches both com and
 example.com entries in the registry, then the longest match applies
 and the example.com entry is used by the client.
 If the registry contains entries such as com and goodexample.com,
 then a domain RDAP query for example.com only matches the com entry
 because matching is done on a per-label basis.
 The entry for the root of the domain name space is specified as "".

5. Bootstrap Service Registries for Internet Numbers

 This section discusses IPv4 and IPv6 address space and Autonomous
 System numbers.
 For IP address space, the authoritative registration data service is
 found by doing a longest match of the target address with the values
 of the arrays in the corresponding RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
 for Address Space.  The longest match is done the same way as for
 routing: the addresses are converted in binary form and then the
 binary strings are compared to find the longest match up to the
 specified prefix length.  The values contained in the second element
 of the array are the base RDAP URLs as described in [RFC7482].  The
 longest match method enables covering prefixes of a larger address
 space pointing to one base RDAP URL while more specific prefixes
 within the covering prefix are being served by another base RDAP URL.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space

 The JSON output of this registry contains IPv4 prefix entries,
 specified in Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) format [RFC4632]
 and grouped by RDAP URLs, as shown in this example.
 {
     "version": "1.0",
     "publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
     "description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.",
     "services": [
       [
         ["1.0.0.0/8", "192.0.0.0/8"],
         [
           "https://rir1.example.com/myrdap/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["28.2.0.0/16", "192.0.2.0/24"],
         [
           "http://example.org/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["28.3.0.0/16"],
         [
           "https://example.net/rdaprir2/",
           "http://example.net/rdaprir2/"
         ]
       ]
     ]
 }
 For example, a query for "192.0.2.1/25" matches the "192.0.0.0/8"
 entry and the "192.0.2.0/24" entry in the example registry above.
 The latter is chosen by the client given the longest match.  The base
 RDAP URL for this query is then taken from the second element of the
 array, which is an array of base RDAP URLs valid for this entry.  The
 client chooses one of the base URLs from this array; in this example,
 it chooses the only one available, "http://example.org/".  The
 {resource} specified in [RFC7482] is then appended to the base URL to
 complete the query.  The complete query is then "https://example.org/
 ip/192.0.2.1/25".

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

5.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space

 The JSON output of this registry contains IPv6 prefix entries, using
 [RFC4291] text representation of the address prefixes format, grouped
 by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this example.
 {
     "version": "1.0",
     "publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
     "description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.",
     "services": [
       [
         ["2001:0200::/23", "2001:db8::/32"],
         [
           "https://rir2.example.com/myrdap/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["2600::/16", "2100:ffff::/32"],
         [
           "http://example.org/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["2001:0200:1000::/36"],
         [
           "https://example.net/rdaprir2/",
           "http://example.net/rdaprir2/"
         ]
       ]
     ]
 }
 For example, a query for "2001:0200:1000::/48" matches the
 "2001:0200::/23" entry and the "2001:0200:1000::/36" entry in the
 example registry above.  The latter is chosen by the client given the
 longest match.  The base RDAP URL for this query is then taken from
 the second element of the array, which is an array of base RDAP URLs
 valid for this entry.  The client chooses one of the base URLs from
 this array; in this example, it chooses "https://example.net/
 rdaprir2/" because it's the secure version of the protocol.  The
 segment specified in [RFC7482] is then appended to the base URL to
 complete the query.  The complete query is, therefore,
 "https://example.net/rdaprir2/ip/2001:0200:1000::/48".  If the target
 RDAP server does not answer, the client can then use another URL
 prefix from the array.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

5.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space

 The JSON output of this contains Autonomous Systems number ranges
 entries, grouped by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this example.  The
 Entry Array is an array containing the list of AS number ranges
 served by the base RDAP URLs found in the second element.  The array
 always contains two AS numbers represented in decimal format that
 represents the range of AS numbers between the two elements of the
 array.  A single AS number is represented as a range of two identical
 AS numbers.
 {
     "version": "1.0",
     "publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
     "description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.",
     "services": [
       [
         ["2045-2045"],
         [
           "https://rir3.example.com/myrdap/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["10000-12000", "300000-400000"],
         [
           "http://example.org/"
         ]
       ],
       [
         ["64512-65534"],
         [
           "http://example.net/rdaprir2/",
           "https://example.net/rdaprir2/"
         ]
       ]
     ]
 }
 For example, a query for AS 65411 matches the 64512-65534 entry in
 the example registry above.  The base RDAP URL for this query is then
 taken from the second element of the array, which is an array of base
 RDAP URLs valid for this entry.  The client chooses one of the base
 URLs from this array; in this example, it chooses
 "https://example.net/rdaprir2/".  The segment specified in [RFC7482]
 is then appended to the base URL to complete the query.  The complete
 query is, therefore, "https://example.net/rdaprir2/autnum/65411".  If
 the server does not answer, the client can then use another URL
 prefix from the array.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

6. Entity

 Entities (such as contacts, registrants, or registrars) can be
 queried by handle as described in [RFC7482].  Since there is no
 global namespace for entities, this document does not describe how to
 find the authoritative RDAP server for entities.  However, it is
 possible that, if the entity identifier was received from a previous
 query, the same RDAP server could be queried for that entity, or the
 entity identifier itself is a fully referenced URL that can be
 queried.

7. Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values

 The registries may not contain the requested value.  In these cases,
 there is no known RDAP server for that requested value, and the
 client SHOULD provide an appropriate error message to the user.

8. Deployment and Implementation Considerations

 This method relies on the fact that RDAP clients are fetching the
 IANA registries to then find the servers locally.  Clients SHOULD NOT
 fetch the registry on every RDAP request.  Clients SHOULD cache the
 registry, but use underlying protocol signaling, such as the HTTP
 Expires header field [RFC7234], to identify when it is time to
 refresh the cached registry.
 If the query data does not match any entry in the client cached
 registry, then the client may implement various methods, such as the
 following:
 o  In the case of a domain object, the client may first query the DNS
    to see if the respective entry has been delegated or if it is
    mistyped information by the user.  The DNS query could be to fetch
    the NS records for the TLD domain.  If the DNS answer is negative,
    then there is no need to fetch the new version of the registry.
    However, if the DNS answer is positive, this may mean that the
    currently cached registry is no longer current.  The client could
    then fetch the registry, parse, and then do the normal matching as
    specified above.  This method may not work for all types of RDAP
    objects.
 o  If the client knows the existence of an RDAP aggregator or
    redirector and its associated base URL, and trusts that service,
    then it could send the query to the redirector, which would
    redirect the client if it knows the authoritative server that
    client has not found.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 Some authorities of registration data may work together on sharing
 their information for a common service, including mutual redirection
 [REDIRECT-RDAP].
 When a new object is allocated, such as a new AS range, a new TLD, or
 a new IP address range, there is no guarantee that this new object
 will have an entry in the corresponding bootstrap RDAP registry,
 since the setup of the RDAP server for this new entry may become live
 and registered later.  Therefore, the clients should expect that even
 if an object, such as TLD, IP address range, or AS range is
 allocated, the existence of the entry in the corresponding bootstrap
 registry is not guaranteed.

9. Limitations

 This method does not provide a direct way to find authoritative RDAP
 servers for any other objects than the ones described in this
 document.  In particular, the following objects are not bootstrapped
 with the method described in this document:
 o  entities
 o  queries using search patterns that do not contain a terminating
    string that matches some entries in the registries
 o  nameservers
 o  help

10. Formal Definition

 This section is the formal definition of the registries.  The
 structure of JSON objects and arrays using a set of primitive
 elements is defined in [RFC7159].  Those elements are used to
 describe the JSON structure of the registries.

10.1. Imported JSON Terms

 o  OBJECT: a JSON object, defined in Section 4 of [RFC7159]
 o  MEMBER: a member of a JSON object, defined in Section 4 of
    [RFC7159]
 o  MEMBER-NAME: the name of a MEMBER, defined as a "string" in
    Section 4 of [RFC7159]
 o  MEMBER-VALUE: the value of a MEMBER, defined as a "value" in
    Section 4 of [RFC7159]

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 o  ARRAY: an array, defined in Section 5 of [RFC7159]
 o  ARRAY-VALUE: an element of an ARRAY, defined in Section 5 of
    [RFC7159]
 o  STRING: a "string", as defined in Section 7 of [RFC7159]

10.2. Registry Syntax

 Using the above terms for the JSON structures, the syntax of a
 registry is defined as follows:
 o  rdap-bootstrap-registry: an OBJECT containing a MEMBER version and
    a MEMBER publication, an optional MEMBER description, and a MEMBER
    services-list
 o  version: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "version" and MEMBER-VALUE a
    STRING
 o  publication: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "publication" and MEMBER-
    VALUE a STRING
 o  description: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "description" and MEMBER-
    VALUE a STRING
 o  services-list: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "services" and MEMBER-
    VALUE a services-array
 o  services-array: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service
 o  service: an ARRAY of 2 elements, where the first ARRAY-VALUE is a
    an entry-list and the second ARRAY-VALUE is a service-uri-list
 o  entry-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is an entry
 o  entry: a STRING
 o  service-uri-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service-
    uri
 o  service-uri: a STRING

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

11. Security Considerations

 By providing a bootstrap method to find RDAP servers, this document
 helps to ensure that the end users will get the RDAP data from an
 authoritative source, instead of from rogue sources.  The method has
 the same security properties as the RDAP protocols themselves.  The
 transport used to access the registries can be more secure by using
 TLS [RFC5246], which IANA supports.
 Additional considerations on using RDAP are described in [RFC7481].

12. IANA Considerations

 IANA has created the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries, listed
 below, and made them available as JSON objects.  The contents of
 these registries are described in Section 3, Section 4, and
 Section 5, with the formal syntax specified in Section 10.
 The process for adding or updating entries in these registries
 differs from the normal IANA registry processes: these registries are
 generated from the data, processes, and policies maintained by IANA
 in their allocation registries ([ipv4reg], [ipv6reg], [asreg], and
 [domainreg]), with the addition of new RDAP server information.
 IANA will create and update RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries
 entries from the allocation registries as those registries are
 updated.
 This document does not change any policies related to the allocation
 registries; IANA has provided a mechanism for collecting the RDAP
 server information.  The RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries will
 start empty and will be gradually populated as registrants of domains
 and address spaces provide RDAP server information to IANA.
 IANA has created a new top-level category on the Protocol Registries
 page, <http://www.iana.org/protocols>.  The group is called
 "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)".  Each of the RDAP
 Bootstrap Services Registries has been made available for general
 public on-demand download in the JSON format, and that registry's URI
 is listed directly on the Protocol Registries page.
 Other normal registries will be added to this group by other
 documents, but the reason the URIs for these registries are clearly
 listed on the main page is to make those URIs obvious to implementers
 -- these are registries that will be accessed by software, as well as
 by humans using them for reference information.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 Because these registries will be accessed by software, the download
 demand for the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries may be unusually
 high compared to normal IANA registries.  The technical
 infrastructure by which registries are published will need to be
 reviewed and might need to be augmented.
 As discussed in Section 8, software that accesses these registries
 will depend on the HTTP Expires header field to limit their query
 rate.  It is, therefore, important for that header field to be
 properly set to provide timely information as the registries change,
 while maintaining a reasonable load on the IANA servers.  The HTTP
 Content-Type returned to clients accessing these JSON- formatted
 registries MUST be "application/json", as defined in [RFC7159].
 Because of how information in the RDAP Bootstrap Services Registries
 is grouped and formatted, the registry entries may not be sortable.
 It is, therefore, not required or expected that the entries be sorted
 in any way.

12.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space

 Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
 o  a CIDR [RFC4632] specification of the network block being
    registered.
 o  one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
    registration.

12.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space

 Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
 o  an IPv6 prefix [RFC4291] specification of the network block being
    registered.
 o  one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
    registration.

12.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space

 Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
 o  a range of Autonomous System numbers being registered.
 o  one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
    registration.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

12.4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space

 Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
 o  a domain name attached to the root being registered.
 o  one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
    registration.

13. References

13.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
            Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
 [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
            Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
 [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
            (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
            Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
 [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
            Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
            RFC 5890, August 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
 [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
            Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.

13.2. Informative References

 [REDIRECT-RDAP]
            Martinez, C., Zhou, L., and G. Rada, "Redirection Service
            for Registration Data Access Protocol", Work in Progress,
            draft-ietf-weirds-redirects-04, July 2014.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

 [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
            (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
 [RFC7071]  Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
            Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, November 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7071>.
 [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
            Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
            RFC 7234, June 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
 [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
            Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
 [RFC7480]  Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
            Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, March
            2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
 [RFC7481]  Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
            Registration Data Access Protocol", RFC 7481, March 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
 [RFC7482]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
            Protocol Query Format", RFC 7482, March 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
 [RFC7483]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
            Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, March
            2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
 [asreg]    IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers",
            <http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers>.
 [domainreg]
            IANA, "Root Zone Database",
            <http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db>.
 [ipv4reg]  IANA, "IPv4 Address Space Registry",
            <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.
 [ipv6reg]  IANA, "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments",
            <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
            ipv6-unicast-address-assignments>.

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 7484 Finding Authoritative RDAP Service March 2015

Acknowledgements

 The WEIRDS working group had multiple discussions on this topic,
 including a session during IETF 84, where various methods such as
 in-DNS and others were debated.  The idea of using IANA registries
 was discovered by the author during discussions with his colleagues
 as well as by a comment from Andy Newton.  All the people involved in
 these discussions are herein acknowledged.  Linlin Zhou, Jean-
 Philippe Dionne, John Levine, Kim Davies, Ernie Dainow, Scott
 Hollenbeck, Arturo Servin, Andy Newton, Murray Kucherawy, Tom
 Harrison, Naoki Kambe, Alexander Mayrhofer, Edward Lewis, Pete
 Resnick, Alessandro Vesely, Bert Greevenbosch, Barry Leiba, Jari
 Arkko, Kathleen Moriaty, Stephen Farrell, Richard Barnes, and Jean-
 Francois Tremblay have provided input and suggestions to this
 document.  Guillaume Leclanche was a coauthor of this document for
 some revisions; his support is therein acknowledged and greatly
 appreciated.  The section on formal definition was inspired by
 Section 6.2 of [RFC7071].

Author's Address

 Marc Blanchet
 Viagenie
 246 Aberdeen
 Quebec, QC  G1R 2E1
 Canada
 EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
 URI:   http://viagenie.ca

Blanchet Standards Track [Page 17]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7484.txt · Last modified: 2015/03/25 20:47 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki