RDAP Deployment Findings and Update
draft-blanchet-regext-rdap-deployfindings-05

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-06-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                        M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft                                                  Viagenie
Intended status: Informational                             June 13, 2019
Expires: December 15, 2019

                  RDAP Deployment Findings and Update
              draft-blanchet-regext-rdap-deployfindings-05

Abstract

   Registration Access Data Protocol(RDAP) is being deployed in domain
   and IP address registries.  This document describes issues and
   findings while interfacing with the known server implementations and
   deployments.  It also provides recommendations for the
   specifications.

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 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 December 15, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  IANA RDAP Registries Related Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Values not Registered or Similar  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  Registry Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  RDAP Extensions not Registered  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  RDAP Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Cross-origin resource sharing(CORS) . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Object Class Name empty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Links Relation Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Related link pointing to self causes infinite loop  . . .   7
     3.5.  Link without rel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.6.  Value and href for IDNs in links  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.7.  Registrant Entity Too Deep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  URL encoding of : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Domain Registrar RDAP Server Location . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Issues related to RFC7482 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Search patterns that are not  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA RDAP Bootstrap Registries Related Issues . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Missing Trailing Char in Bootstrap Registries . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Single target value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   While developing various tools and software related to RDAP, issues
   have been found and are documented below.  This document should help
   in writing future version of the specifications and provide better
   conformant deployment.  It is split in various sections based on
   where the fix should be applied.  Obviously, there are different
   levels of severity of the issues, including nits or very minor.  The
   actual instances and organisations running the RDAP servers where the
   issues were found are not listed.

2.  IANA RDAP Registries Related Issues

   This section describes issues related to the IANA non-Bootstrap
   registries as specified in [RFC7483].

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

2.1.  Values not Registered or Similar

   The IANA RDAP JSON Values registry [1] contains various values
   expected in JSON responses.  The following table shows values not
   registered in the registry but seen in the field.  The second column
   shows the possible corresponding values already registered.

   Recommendation: implementations should replace their custom values
   with the registered ones, when one exist.  Implementors should
   register their values when there is no corresponding registered one.

                               Remarks Type

   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Unregistered Values             | Possibly Corresponding          |
   |                                 | Registered Values               |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | object truncated due to server  | object truncated due to         |
   | policy                          | authorization                   |
   | Response truncated due to       | object truncated due to         |
   | authorization                   | authorization                   |
   | Object truncated due to         | object truncated due to         |
   | authorization                   | authorization                   |
   | object redacted due to          | object truncated due to         |
   | authorization                   | authorization                   |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+

                               Event Action

   +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   | Unregistered Values         | Possibly Corresponding Registered   |
   |                             | Values                              |
   +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
   | delegation check            |                                     |
   | last correct delegation     |                                     |
   | check                       |                                     |
   | last update                 | last changed                        |
   +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

                               Status Value

   +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+
   | Unregistered Values      | Possibly Corresponding Registered      |
   |                          | Values                                 |
   +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+
   | server deleted           | server delete prohibited               |
   | prohibited               |                                        |
   | ok                       | active                                 |
   +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+

                                Role Value

    +---------------------+------------------------------------------+
    | Unregistered Values | Possibly Corresponding Registered Values |
    +---------------------+------------------------------------------+
    | owner               | registrant                               |
    +---------------------+------------------------------------------+

2.1.1.  Registry Entity

   The (domain or IP) registry itself is currently not modeled in
   entities in RDAP.  In an whois query for a TLD itself, the Remarks
   contains the URL of the registry entity (for registration
   information) and the whois entry of the registry is returned.  In
   RDAP context, the RDAP server URL of the TLD registry should also be
   returned.  Therefore, IANA RDAP server should send this data for the
   TLDs as part of its RDAP response.  These semantics are currently not
   modeled.

   This document proposes that RDAP servers may send an entity with role
   "registry" in the top-level of the RDAP response.  This entity would
   have embedded [links] to its web server ("rel": "self", "type":
   "text/html") and rdap server ("rel": "self", "type": "application/
   rdap+json").

   IANA Action: add a new row "registry", "role" to the RDAP JSON Values
   registry.

2.2.  RDAP Extensions not Registered

   The IANA RDAP Extensions registry [2] contains various extensions
   values expected in RDAP JSON responses in the rdapCconformance
   member.  It is our understanding from [RFC7483] section 4.1 and
   [RFC7480] section 8.1 that only the prefix of the extension (i.e.
   "rdap_ObjectTag"), not the whole string ("rdap_objectTag_level_0"),
   need to be registered in the IANA registry.  However, some entries in

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

   the IANA RDAP extensions registry seem to imply a 0 version as part
   of the registered value.

   The following table shows values seen in the field in the first
   column, corresponding prefix (guessed as there is no normalized
   delimiter) in the second column and if the prefix is registered in
   IANA registry in the third column.

   This registry may end up listing all names of all registries if each
   one has his own extension.  Moreover, there is no normalized
   delimiter of the prefix in the full string, which may not help the
   RDAP client to parse and interpret correctly.  As with [RFC6350], we
   may instead use the First Come First Serve(FCFS) private enterprise
   numbers (PEN) registry to automatically have an organisation prefix
   defined without creating another set of org names within this
   registry and have the delimiter be "_" following the PEN.

   Recommendation (short term): implementations should replace their
   custom values with the registered ones, when one exist.  Implementors
   should register their values when there is no corresponding
   registered one.

   +----------------------------+----------------------------+---------+
   | Values Seen                | Corresponding Assumed      | Prefix  |
   |                            | Prefix                     | Already |
   |                            |                            | Registe |
   |                            |                            | red in  |
   |                            |                            | IANA    |
   +----------------------------+----------------------------+---------+
   | rdap_objectTag_level_0     | rdap_objectTag             | Y       |
   | fred_version_0             | fred                       | Y       |
   | rdap_openidc_level_0       | rdap_openidc               | N       |
   | icann_rdap_technical_imple | icann_rdap_technical_imple | N       |
   | mentation_guide_0          | mentation_guide            |         |
   | icann_rdap_response_profil | icann_rdap_response_profil | N       |
   | e_0                        | e                          |         |
   | itNic_level_0              | itNic                      | N       |
   | nicbr_level_0              | nicbr                      | N       |
   | ur_domain_check_level_0    |                            | N       |
   | history_version_0          |                            | N       |
   | registrar_api_0            |                            | N       |
   +----------------------------+----------------------------+---------+

3.  RDAP Responses

   This section discusses issues found related to RDAP responses,
   specified in [RFC7483].

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

3.1.  Cross-origin resource sharing(CORS)

   As specified in [RFC7480], the HTTP "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *"
   header should be included in the responses, to enable Web clients to
   work properly.  Some RDAP servers do not set this header.  RFC7480
   says "it is RECOMMENDED that servers".  It should be updated to "for
   any public Internet deployment, servers MUST".

3.2.  Object Class Name empty

   A non-conformant server sends the following answer, where the value
   of "objectClassName" is an empty string (as well as "handle" also
   empty).  As per [RFC7483] section 4.9, this "objectClassName" value
   is required.  Extract of the seen response:

   {
     entities: [
      {
      "entities": [
        {
        "objectClassName": "",
        "handle": "",
        }
      ],
    ],
   }

3.3.  Links Relation Values

   The links relation values as specified in [RFC7483] section 4.3 refer
   to [RFC5988] which creates the IANA Link Relations registry [3].
   This registry contains a large number of values where most of them do
   not apply to the RDAP deployment.  As seen with other values above
   that are similar to registered ones but not used, we list here the
   ones we have seen.  It would be appropriate to further describes the
   main ones in the RFC so implementors focus on ones that are expected
   instead of picking the wrong ones in the IANA registry or to define
   new ones and do not register them.

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

                        Links Relation Values Seen

        +---------------------------+-----------------------------+
        | Values                    | Registered in IANA registry |
        +---------------------------+-----------------------------+
        | about                     | Y                           |
        | alternate                 | Y                           |
        | copyright                 | Y                           |
        | describedBy               | Y                           |
        | help                      | Y                           |
        | related                   | Y                           |
        | self                      | Y                           |
        | terms-of-service          | Y                           |
        | up                        | Y                           |
        | https://restOfURLRedacted | N                           |
        +---------------------------+-----------------------------+

   As shown in the table, an implementation put an URL as the value of
   the "rel", instead of an actual registered value.

3.4.  Related link pointing to self causes infinite loop

   An RDAP server returns a link of "rel": "related" is pointing to
   itself, therefore causing the RDAP client to fetch the object again,
   then read the related link and then fetch again, creating an infinite
   loop.  Extract of the seen response:

   {
     "links": [
       {
       "title": "Self",
       "rel": "self",
       "type": "application/rdap+json",
       "href": "https://rdapserver.example.com/domain/example.net"
       },
       {
       "title": "Registrar Data for this object",
       "rel": "related",
       "href": "https://rdapserver.example.com/domain/example.net",
       "type": "application/rdap+json"
       }
     ],
   }

   Recommendation: do not put related link same as self.  RFC7483
   section 4.2 should be updated to add the following text: "A link of
   "rel": "related" should not have the "href" value the same as the
   value of "href" of link of "rel": "self".

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

3.5.  Link without rel

   An RDAP server returns a link with no "rel" property, so the client
   parser has no clue what is this data and what to do with it.  Extract
   of the seen response:

   {
   "links": [
     {
      title: "My Corporation",
      href: "http://mycorp.mytld"
      }
   ],
   }

   Recommendation: Any link must have a "rel" value.  RFC7483 says that
   only href is mandatory.  RFC7483 should be updated to have both rel
   and href mandatory.  The original text "The "href" JSON value MUST be
   specified." should be changed to "The "href" and "rel" JSON values
   MUST be specified."

3.6.  Value and href for IDNs in links

   An RDAP server should return a link with "rel": "self" with a href
   corresponding to the target URL and value as context URI.  In case of
   idn, there are at least two possible representations of the URI: with
   the A-label or U-label in the URI, the latter known as IRI
   ([RFC3987]).  Moreover, the query may be of a U-Label or A-Label or
   combination of these types of labels.  Therefore, there is an
   ambiguity in which representation should be the canonical one sent.
   This also applies to any type of "rel" for links.  Extract of the
   seen response:

   {
     "links": [
      {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "http://myrdapserver.xn--abcd/domain/example.ULABEL"
      }
     ],
   }

   Recommendation: All links of any "rel" types should always be
   returned in the A-Label form for IDNs in the href or value members,
   independent of if the query was a U-Label or A-Label or a mix.  This
   should be added to [RFC7483].

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

3.7.  Registrant Entity Too Deep

   An RDAP server returns the registrant entity in a subentity, which
   makes difficult to parse given the expectation is the registrant
   would be at the top level.  Extract of the seen response:

   {
    entities: [
     {
       "objectClassName": "entity",
       "handle": "HANDLE1",
       "roles": [ "abuse" ],
       "vcardArray": [ ... ],
       "entities": [
          {
          "objectClassName": "entity",
          "handle": "HANDLE2",
          "roles": [ "registrant" ],
          "vcardArray": [ ... ],
          }
       ],
   ],

   Recommendation: put the registrant in the top-level entities as
   follows:

   {
    entities: [
     {
       "objectClassName": "entity",
       "handle": "HANDLE1",
       "roles": [ "abuse" ],
       "vcardArray": [ ... ]
     },
     {
       "objectClassName": "entity",
       "handle": "HANDLE2",
       "roles": [ "registrant" ],
       "vcardArray": [ ... ],
     }
   ],

4.  Queries

   This section talks about support of RFC7482 queries and the RDAP
   server behaviors seen.

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

4.1.  URL encoding of :

   For RIR registries, the ip query may include an IPv6 address which
   then includes one or many ":".  Clients may decide to do percent-
   encoding of the query.  In one RDAP server, the server rejected the
   percent-encoded query of an IPv6 address.  For example,
   https://rdapserver.example.com/ip/2001%3Adb8%3A0%3A%3A/48 is
   rejected, while https://rdapserver.example.com/ip/2001:db8:0::/48 is
   accepted.

   Recommendation: accept both percent-encoded queries or non-percent
   encoded queries.

5.  Domain Registrar RDAP Server Location

   The ICANN RDAP Profile [4] section 3.2 requires the domain registries
   who do not have registrant information (so-called thin registries) to
   put a specific link of "rel": "related" pointing to the domain
   registrar responsible for the domain being queried, so that a client
   can get the registrant information using a second query to the
   related link.  However, the semantics seems ambiguous as other RDAP
   servers may use the "rel": "related" for other related means, but not
   the specific semantic of finding the registrant data.  Therefore, a
   possible mitigation is to define a new "rel" type of "registrantInfo"
   (mnemonic TBD) to carry the specific semantic of registrant info.

6.  Issues related to RFC7482

6.1.  Search patterns that are not

   Section 3.2.1 of [RFC7482] says: "domains?nsIp=ZZZZ.  ZZZZ is a
   search pattern representing an IPv4 [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952]
   address.".  Search pattern has been used throughout the document as
   something that can include '*', while here, it does not.  The syntax
   statement is also misleading.  Similarly, section 3.2.2 says:
   "nameservers?ip=YYYY YYYY is a search pattern representing an IPv4
   [RFC1166] or IPv6 [RFC5952] address."

   Recommendation: in [RFC7482], replace: "ZZZZ is a search pattern
   representing an IPv4" by "ZZZZ is an IPv4", "Syntax:
   domains?nsIp=<domain search pattern>" by "Syntax:
   domains?nsIp=<nameserver IP address>", "YYYY is a search pattern
   representing an IPv4" by "YYYY is an IPv4", "Syntax:
   nameservers?ip=<nameserver search pattern>" by "Syntax:
   nameservers?ip=<nameserver IP address>"

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

7.  IANA RDAP Bootstrap Registries Related Issues

   This section describes issues related to the IANA Bootstrap
   registries as specified in [RFC7484].

7.1.  Missing Trailing Char in Bootstrap Registries

   [RFC7484] section 3 says: "Base RDAP URLs MUST have a trailing "/"
   character".  However, some values in the various IANA Bootstrap
   registries do not have the trailing "/" character.  These should be
   added to provide consistency.

7.2.  Single target value

   [RFC7484] provides a way to list multiple RDAP servers for an entry.
   This flexibility was designed initially to support multiple URI
   types, such as http: and https, and to provide some level of
   redundancy.  However, given that security deployment policy is to use
   https everywhere and redundancy can be accomplished in other ways,
   deployment has shown that all entries in all bootstrap registries
   have a single target RDAP URL value.  Therefore, we can consider
   updating the RFC to provide only one target value.  However, this
   should be done carefully to avoid breaking current deployed clients.

8.  Security Considerations

   Proper conformance to specifications helps security.  However, no
   security issues have been found in the context of this draft.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document request IANA to add the following values to this
   registry.  TBD.  See 'IANA Action:' within the document.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Audric Schiltknecht, Mario Loffredo, Justin Mack, James Gould have
   provided input and suggestions to this document.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC7480]  Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
              Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3987]  Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987,
              January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>.

   [RFC5988]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.

   [RFC6350]  Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.

11.3.  URIs

   [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-
       values.xhtml

   [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/rdap-
       extensions.xhtml

   [3] https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-
       relations.xhtml

   [4] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdap-technical-
       implementation-guide-15feb19-en.pdf

Author's Address

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     RDAP Deployment Findings and Update         June 2019

   Marc Blanchet
   Viagenie
   246 Aberdeen
   Quebec, QC  G1R 2E1
   Canada

   Email: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca
   URI:   http://viagenie.ca

Blanchet                Expires December 15, 2019              [Page 13]