One document matched: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-03.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-02.txt
Network Working Group M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft G. Guillaume
Intended status: Standards Track Viagenie
Expires: December 30, 2014 June 28, 2014
Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service
draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-03.txt
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 Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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 & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Structure of RDAP Bootstrap Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Domain Name RDAP Bootstrap Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Internet Numbers RDAP Bootstrap Registries . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. IPv4 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Registry . . . . . . . 5
5.2. IPv6 Address Space RDAP Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Autonomous Systems RDAP Bootstrap Registry . . . . . . . 6
6. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Deployment and Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . 8
9. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
Querying and retrieving registration data from registries are defined
in the Registration Data Access Protocol(RDAP)[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-q
uery][I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http][I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
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.
The proposed mechanism is based on that allocation data for domain
names and IP addresses are maintained by IANA, are publicly available
and are in a structured format. The mechanism assumes some data
structure within these registries and request IANA to create these
registries for the specific purpose of RDAP use, herein named RDAP
Bootstrap registries. An RDAP client fetches the RDAP bootstrap
registries, extract the data and then do 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].
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
3. Structure of RDAP Bootstrap Registries
The RDAP Bootstrap Registries are implemented as JSON [RFC7159]
objects. A registry starts with metadata such as a version id
identified as a timestamp of the publication date of the registry and
some defaults values. Then follows an array of arrays. Each second
level array lists all the entries available by the same template
method. There is no assumption of sorting at the first or second
level arrays. An example structure of a JSON RDAP Bootstrap Registry
is illustrated:
{
"rdap.bootstrap": {
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"scheme": [ https http ],
"services": [
["entry1", "entry2", "entry3"]: {
"template": "{proto}://registry.example.com/myrdap/{resource}",
"proto": [ https ],
},
["entry4"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.org/{resource}",
},
],
}
}
The version corresponds to the format version of the registry. This
specification defines "1.0". The syntax of "publication" value
conforms to the Internet date/time format [RFC3339]. The "proto"
object is an array of transport protocols used to access the
resource. The RDAP bootstrap client SHOULD try the transport
protocols in the order they are presented in the array. The "proto"
object can be overriden in the specific entries. Per [RFC7258], the
secure version of the transport protocol SHOULD be first.
Any unknown or unspecified JSON object properties or values should be
ignored by implementers.
4. Domain Name RDAP Bootstrap Registry
This registry contains domain labels entries attached to the root,
grouped by templates, as shown in this example.
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
{
"rdap.bootstrap": {
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"proto": [ "https", "http" ],
"services": [
["net", "com"]: {
"template": "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/{resource}",
},
["org", "mytld"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.org/{resource}",
},
],
["mytld2"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.net/rdapmytld2/{resource}",
"proto": [ "http", "https"],
},
],
}
}
The domain names authoritative registration data service is found by
doing the longest match of the target domain name with the domain
values in the arrays in the IANA Domain Name RDAP Bootstrap Registry.
This is a string search of the longest match starting from the end of
the target name and the end of each value in the arrays. The value
of the corresponding "template" object is the base RDAP URL as
described in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query].
For example, a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches the com
entry in one of the arrays of the registry. Following the example
above, the base RDAP URL for this query is
"https://registry.example.com/myrdap/". The {resource} specified in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] 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". This
example is not normative.
5. Internet Numbers RDAP Bootstrap Registries
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 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap
registry. The longest match is done the same way as for routing: the
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
addresses are converted in binary form and then the binary strings
are compared to find the longest match. The value of the template
object is the base RDAP url as described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]. The longest match method enables
covering prefixes of a larger address space pointing to one RDAP
template while more specific prefixes within the covering prefix
being served by another RDAP template.
5.1. IPv4 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Registry
This registry contains IPv4 prefix entries, specified in CIDR format
and grouped by templates, as shown in this example.
{
"rdap.bootstrap": {
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"proto": [ "https", "http" ],
"services": [
["1.0.0.0/8", "192.0.0.0/8"]: {
"template": "https://rir1.example.com/myrdap/{resource}",
},
["28.2.0.0/16", "192.0.2.0/24"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.org/{resource}",
},
],
["28.3.0.0/16"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.net/rdaprir2/{resource}",
"proto": [ "http", "https"],
},
],
}
}
For example, a query for "192.0.2.0/24" 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 template object and
expands to "{proto}://example.org/". The {resource} specified in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is then appended to the base URL to
complete the query. The complete query is then "https://example.org/
ip/192.0.2.0/24". This example is not normative.
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
5.2. IPv6 Address Space RDAP Registry
This registry contains IPv6 prefix entries, using [RFC4291] text
representation of address prefixes format, grouped by templates, as
shown in this example.
{
"rdap.bootstrap": {
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"proto": [ "https", "http" ],
"services": [
["2001:0200::/23", "2001:db8::/32"]: {
"template": "https://rir2.example.com/myrdap/{resource}",
},
["2600::/16", "2100:ffff::/32"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.org/{resource}",
},
["2001:0200:1000::/28"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.net/rdaprir2/{resource}",
"proto": [ "http", "https"],
},
],
}
}
For example, a query for "2001:0200:1000::/48" matches the
"2001:0200::/23" entry and the "2001:0200:1000::/28" 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 template object "{proto}://example.net/rdaprir2/". The
{resource} specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] 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".
This example is not normative.
5.3. Autonomous Systems RDAP Bootstrap Registry
This registry contains Autonomous Systems Number Ranges entries,
grouped by templates, as shown in this example. Entries in the
arrays are either single AS numbers or ranges of AS numbers where the
lower appears first, then the "-" separator and then the upper
number. Both 16bit and 32 bit AS numbers are specified in decimal.
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
{
"rdap.bootstrap": {
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"proto": [ "https", "http" ],
"services": [
["2045", "20116-20117"]: {
"template": "https://rir2.example.com/myrdap/{resource}",
},
["10000-12000", "65900-66000"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.org/{resource}",
},
["65512-65534"]: {
"template": "{proto}://example.net/rdaprir2/{resource}",
"proto": [ "http", "https"],
},
],
}
}
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 template object "{proto}://example.net/rdaprir2/".
The {resource} specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is then
appended to the base URL to complete the query. The complete query
is therefore "https://example.net/rdaprir2/autnum/65411". This
example is not normative.
6. Entity
Since there is no global namespace for entities, this document does
not describe how to find the authoritative RDAP server for entities.
It is possible however 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 or the RDAP URL
value may be empty. 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.
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
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 every time the registry. Clients SHOULD cache the registry,
but use underlying protocol signalling, such as 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 to be RDAP queried, the client may
first query the DNS to see if the respective entry has been
delegated or if it is a 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 more
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 a RDAP aggregator or
redirector and trust 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.
IANA should make sure that the service of those registries is able to
cope with a larger demand and should take appropriate measures such
as caching and load balancing.
This specification does not assume while not prohibiting how some
authorities of registration data may work together on sharing their
information for a common service, including mutual
redirection[I-D.ietf-weirds-redirects].
9. Limitations
This method does not provide a direct way to find authoritative RDAP
servers:
o for entities
o for queries using search patterns that do not contain a
terminating string that matches some entries in the registries
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
10. Security Considerations
By providing a bootstrap method to find RDAP servers, this document
helps making sure that the end-users will get the RDAP data from
authoritative source, instead of from rogue sources. The method
itself has the same security properties as the RDAP protocols
themselves. The transport used to access the registries could be
more secure by using TLS [RFC5246] if IANA supports it.
11. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to do the following:
o Create a new registry "IPv4 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service"
in the JSON format, as shown above.
o Create a new registry "IPv6 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service"
in the JSON format, as shown above.
o Create a new registry "Autonomous System Number Space RDAP
Bootstrap Service" in the JSON format, as shown above.
o Create a new registry "Domain Name Space RDAP Bootstrap Service"
in the JSON format, as shown above.
It is envisionned that these new registries will have similar entries
than the corresponding IANA allocation registries, such as
[ipv4reg],[ipv6reg],[asreg], [domainreg], and possibly similar
registration policies. However, the registration policies for the
new registries of this document are left to IANA.
The registries may be maintained in IANA own format, such as XML.
However, the registry should be available in the JSON format, and
optionally in other formats such as XML.
12. 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 editor 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 have provided input and suggestions to this
document.
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
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.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
13.2. Non-Normative References
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-json-response-07 (work in progress), April 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol Query Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-10
(work in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-redirects]
Martinez, C., Zhou, L., and G. Rada, "Redirection Service
for Registration Data Access Protocol", draft-ietf-weirds-
redirects-03 (work in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-using-http-08 (work in progress), February 2014.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", RFC 7234, June
2014.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014.
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service June 2014
[asreg] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "Autonomous
System (AS) Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-
numbers/as-numbers.xml>.
[domainreg]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "Root Zone
Database", <http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db>.
[ipv4reg] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "IPv4 Address
Space", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-
space/ipv4-address-space.xml>.
[ipv6reg] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Assignments",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-
assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xml>.
[ipv6regparent]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "Internet
Protocol Version 6 Address Space",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/
ipv6-address-space.xml>.
Authors' Addresses
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Guillaume Leclanche
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Email: Guillaume.Leclanche@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Blanchet & Guillaume Expires December 30, 2014 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 18:53:31 |