| Internet-Draft | RDAP RIR Search | May 2023 |
| Harrison & Singh | Expires 3 November 2023 | [Page] |
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) is used by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs) to provide access to their resource registration information. The core specifications for RDAP define basic search functionality, but there are various IP and ASN-related search options provided by RIRs via their Whois services for which there is no corresponding RDAP functionality. This document extends RDAP to support those search options.¶
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 https://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 3 November 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) [RFC7480] is used by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs) to provide access to their resource registration information. The core specifications for RDAP define basic search functionality, but this is limited to domains, nameservers, and entities. No searches were defined for IP networks or autonomous system numbers. In an effort to have RDAP reach feature parity with the existing RIR Whois services in this respect, this document defines additional search options for IP networks and autonomous system numbers.¶
While this document is in terms of RIRs and DNRs for the sake of consistency with earlier RDAP documents such as [RFC9082] and [RFC9083], the functionality described here may be used by any RDAP server operator that hosts Internet Number Resource (INR) objects, such as National Internet Registries (NIRs) or Local Internet Registries (LIRs).¶
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] [RFC8174].¶
The new resource type path segments for basic search (similar to the searches defined in [RFC9082] and [RFC9083] are:¶
Search path segments are formed using the same logic as in section 3.2 of [RFC9082].¶
Syntax: ips?handle=<handle search pattern>¶
Syntax: ips?name=<name search pattern>¶
Searches for IP network information by handle are specified using the form:¶
ips?handle=XXXX¶
XXXX is a search pattern representing an IP network identifier, the syntax for which is specific to the registration provider. The following URL would be used to find information for IP networks with handles matching the "NET-199*" pattern:¶
https://example.com/rdap/ips?handle=NET-199*¶
Searches for IP network information by name are specified using the form:¶
ips?name=XXXX¶
XXXX is a search pattern representing an IP network identifier that is assigned to the network registration by the registration holder. The following URL would be used to find information for IP networks with names matching the "NET-EXAMPLE-*" pattern:¶
https://example.com/rdap/ips?name=NET-EXAMPLE-*¶
Syntax: autnums?handle=<handle search pattern>¶
Syntax: autnums?name=<name search pattern>¶
Searches for autonomous system number information by handle are specified using the form:¶
autnums?handle=XXXX¶
XXXX is a search pattern representing an autonomous system number identifier, the syntax for which is specific to the registration provider. The following URL would be used to find information for autonomous system numbers with handles matching the "AS1*" pattern:¶
https://example.com/rdap/autnums?handle=AS1*¶
Searches for autonomous system number information by name are specified using the form:¶
autnums?name=XXXX¶
XXXX is a search pattern representing an autonomous system number identifier that is assigned to the autonomous system number registration by the registration holder. The following URL would be used to find information for autonomous system numbers with names matching the "ASN-EXAMPLE-*" pattern:¶
https://example.com/rdap/autnums?name=ASN-EXAMPLE-*¶
[RFC9083] contains example objects that make use of the "up" link relation in order to simplify the process of finding the parent object for a given object. This section defines searches for finding objects and sets of objects with respect to their place within a hierarchy.¶
The new resource type path segments for relation search (similar to the searches defined in [RFC9082] and [RFC9083]) are:¶
Syntax: <object class search path segment>/rir_search/<relation>/<object-value>[?status=<status>]¶
The relation searches defined in this document rely on the syntax described above. Each search works in the same way for each object type.¶
An IP network, autonomous system number, or reverse domain object may have a "parent" object and one or more "child" objects. The "parent" object is the next-least-specific object that exists in the relevant registry, while the "child" objects are the next-most-specific objects that exist in the relevant registry. For example, for a registry with the following four IP network objects:¶
+--------------+
| 192.0.2.0/24 |
+--------------+
/ \
+--------------+ +----------------+
| 192.0.2.0/25 | | 192.0.128.0/25 |
+--------------+ +----------------+
/
+--------------+
| 192.0.2.0/32 |
+--------------+
the parent and child object relationships are:¶
| Object | Parent |
|---|---|
| 192.0.2.0/32 | 192.0.2.0/25 |
| 192.0.2.128/25 | 192.0.2.0/24 |
| 192.0.2.0/25 | 192.0.2.0/24 |
| 192.0.2.0/24 | N/A |
| Object | Child |
|---|---|
| 192.0.2.0/24 | 192.0.2.0/25, 192.0.2.128/25 |
| 192.0.2.0/25 | 192.0.2.0/32 |
| 192.0.2.128/25 | N/A |
| 192.0.2.0/32 | N/A |
Along similar lines, each object of these types may have a "top" object, being the least-specific covering object that exists in the registry, and one or more "bottom" objects, being the more-specific objects which do not themselves have more-specific objects that entirely cover the object's range when taken together. Given the registry defined in the previous paragraph, the top and bottom object relationships are:¶
| Object | Top |
|---|---|
| 192.0.2.0/32 | 192.0.2.0/24 |
| 192.0.2.128/25 | 192.0.2.0/24 |
| 192.0.2.0/25 | 192.0.2.0/24 |
| 192.0.2.0/24 | N/A |
| Object | Bottom |
|---|---|
| 192.0.2.0/24 | 192.0.2.0/25, 192.0.2.0/32, 192.0.2.128/25 |
| 192.0.2.0/25 | 192.0.2.0/25, 192.0.2.0/32 |
| 192.0.2.128/25 | N/A |
| 192.0.2.0/32 | N/A |
The set of objects at the bottom of the hierarchy for a given object will include the object itself where that object's more-specific objects do not entirely cover the object's range when taken together. This is why 192.0.2.0/25 is included as one of the bottom set of objects for itself. Conversely, 192.0.2.0/24 is not included as one of the bottom set of objects for itself, because it is covered in whole by 192.0.2.0/25 and 192.0.2.128/25.¶
If the server receives a search containing the relation value "up", it will return the parent object for the specified INR value/range or reverse domain. If no such object exists, it will return an empty search response.¶
If the server receives a search containing the relation value "down", it will return the children objects for the specified INR value/range or reverse domain. If no such objects exist, it will return an empty search response. Per the definitions section, this includes only immediate children objects.¶
If the server receives a search containing the relation value "top", it will return the top object for the specified INR value/range or reverse domain. If no such object exists, it will return an empty search response.¶
If the server receives a search containing the relation value "bottom", it will return the bottom objects for the specified INR value/range or reverse domain. If no such objects exist, it will return an empty search response.¶
If the "status" argument is provided, then response processing will take into account only those objects that have the specified status. This is useful, for example, where the client is trying to find the delegation from an RIR to an RIR account holder: by using the "top" relation with a "status" of "active", the delegation from IANA to the RIR will be ignored, and the client will receive the delegation from the RIR to the account holder in the response instead.¶
Server operators MAY opt not to support "status" processing for the "down" and "bottom" link relations, in which case the server should respond with a HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC9110] if they receive such a request.¶
Each of the relations defined in section 3.2.2 has a corresponding link relation that can be used for a link object contained within another RDAP object. The response returned by a server when fetching the link target for a link within an RDAP object with one of those link relations MUST be the same response that would be returned for the corresponding search. For example:¶
{
"startAddress": "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress": "192.0.2.127",
...
"links": [
...,
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25",
"rel": "up",
"href": ".../ips/rir_search/up/192.0.2.0/25",
"type": "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25",
"rel": "down",
"href": ".../ips/rir_search/down/192.0.2.0/25",
"type": "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25",
"rel": "top",
"href": ".../ips/rir_search/top/192.0.2.0/25",
"type": "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25",
"rel": "bottom",
"href": ".../ips/rir_search/bottom/192.0.2.0/25",
"type": "application/rdap+json"
}
]
}
Two additional link relations are defined that correspond to relation searches with a "status" of "active": "top-active" and "up-active". The equivalent link relations for "down" and "bottom" are not defined, because it is not expected that they will be used.¶
Since the "top" and "up" link relations resolve to a single object, it is possible to simply include that object's link in the "href" attribute in the link object. For example:¶
{
"startAddress": "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress": "192.0.2.127",
...
"links": [
...,
{
"value": "https://rdap.example.com/ip/192.0.2.0/25",
"rel": "up",
"href": "https://rdap.example.com/192.0.2.0/24",
"type": "application/rdap+json"
}
]
}
This section mandates specific behaviour for the "up" link relation, but does not define that link relation (see [RFC8288]). The specific behaviour is for the RDAP INR context only, though, and in that context it does not conflict with the current description of that link relation.¶
As with [RFC9083], responses to the IP network and autonomous system number searches defined in the previous sections take the form of an array of object instances, where each instance is an appropriate object class for the search (i.e., a search beginning with /ips yields an array of IP network object instances, and a search beginning with /autnums yields an array of autonomous system number object instances). These arrays are contained within the response object.¶
The names of the arrays are as follows:¶
Responses for relation searches for reverse domain objects have the same form as for a standard domain search response, per [RFC9083].¶
RDAP reverse search is defined by [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search]. That document limits reverse search to domains, nameservers, and entities. This document extends reverse search to cover IP networks and autonomous system numbers as well.¶
If a server receives a reverse search query with a searchable resource type (per the definition of that term in [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search]) of "ips", then the reverse search will be performed on the IP network objects from its data store. Similarly, if a server receives a reverse search query with a searchable resource type of "autnums", then the reverse search will be performed on the autonomous system number objects from its data store.¶
Additionally, Section 9 includes requests to register new entries for IP network and autonomous system number searches in the RDAP Reverse Search and RDAP Reverse Search Mapping IANA registries.¶
A server that supports the functionality specified in this document MUST include the string literal "rir_search" in the rdapConformance array in their response objects.¶
[RFC7480], [RFC9082] and [RFC9083] collectively require that an RDAP extension identifier be used as a prefix in new path segments and response object members that are introduced by the extension. Because IP network objects and autonomous system number objects are part of the original set of object types defined for use in RDAP, it may be unintuitive or confusing for users if the basic searches and associated responses defined here include the "rir_search" extension prefix, since the searches and associated responses for the other original object types do not include a prefix. Therefore, the extension identifier is not used as a prefix in this document. It is not expected that this will cause any problems for RDAP clients or similar. The relation searches do make use of the extension identifier, though, because no similar searches are defined in those original RDAP documents.¶
The search functionality defined in this document may affect the privacy of entities in the registry (and elsewhere) in various ways: see [RFC6973] for a general treatment of privacy in protocol specifications. Server operators should be aware of the tradeoffs that result from implementation of this functionality.¶
Many jurisdictions have laws or regulations that restrict the use of "Personal Data", per the definition in [RFC6973]. Given that, server operators should ascertain whether the regulatory environment in which they operate permits implementation of the functionality defined in this document.¶
[RFC7481] describes security requirements and considerations for RDAP generally.¶
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP Extensions Registry:¶
IANA is also requested to register the following values in the Link Relations Registry:¶
IANA is also requested to register the following entries in the "RDAP Reverse Search" registry:¶
IANA is also requested to register the following entries in the "RDAP Reverse Search Mapping" registry:¶
The authors wish to thank Mario Loffredo, Andy Newton, and Antoin Verschuren for document review and associated comments.¶