RFC9224: Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Service
Download in text format
Obsoletes:
RFC7484
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Blanchet
Request for Comments: 9224 Viagenie
STD: 95 March 2022
Obsoletes: 7484
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol (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. This document obsoletes RFC 7484.
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 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Conventions Used in This Document
3. Structure of the RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries
4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space
5. Bootstrap Service Registries for Internet Numbers
5.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space
5.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space
5.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space
6. Entity
7. Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values
8. Deployment and Implementation Considerations
9. Limitations
10. Formal Definition
10.1. Imported JSON Terms
10.2. Registry Syntax
11. Security Considerations
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space
12.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space
12.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space
12.4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space
13. References
13.1. Normative References
13.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Changes since RFC 7484
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
1. Introduction
Querying and retrieving registration data from registries are defined
in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) [RFC7480] [RFC7481]
[RFC9082] [RFC9083]. 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]. This document obsoletes [RFC7484].
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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 [RFC8259] 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 ordered in any way.
An example structure of the JSON output of an 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"],
[
"https://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 [RFC9082].
JSON names MUST follow the format recommendations of Section 6 of
[RFC7480]. Any unrecognized JSON object properties or values MUST be
ignored by implementations.
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": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
"description": "Some text",
"services": [
[
["net", "com"],
[
"https://registry.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["org", "mytld"],
[
"https://example.org/"
]
],
[
["xn--zckzah"],
[
"https://example.net/rdap/xn--zckzah/",
"http://example.net/rdap/xn--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
in the Service URL Array of the matching second-level array are the
valid base RDAP URLs as described in [RFC9082].
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 [RFC9082] 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 in
packet forwarding: 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
[RFC9082]. 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.
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": [
[
["198.51.100.0/24", "192.0.0.0/8"],
[
"https://rir1.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["203.0.113.0/24", "192.0.2.0/24"],
[
"https://example.org/"
]
],
[
["203.0.113.0/28"],
[
"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 because it is 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,
"https://example.org/". The {resource} specified in [RFC9082] 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".
5.2. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv6 Address Space
The JSON output of this registry contains IPv6 prefix entries, using
[RFC5952] 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:db8::/34"],
[
"https://rir2.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["2001:db8:4000::/36", "2001:db8:ffff::/48"],
[
"https://example.org/"
]
],
[
["2001:db8:1000::/36"],
[
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/",
"http://example.net/rdaprir2/"
]
]
]
}
For example, a query for "2001:db8:1000::/48" matches the
"2001:db8::/34" entry and the "2001:db8:1000::/36" entry in the
example registry above. The latter is chosen by the client because
it is 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 [RFC9082] is then appended to
the base URL to complete the query. The complete query is therefore
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/ip/2001:db8:1000::/48". If the target
RDAP server does not answer, the client can then use another URL
prefix from the array.
5.3. Bootstrap Service Registry for AS Number Space
The JSON output of this registry contains entries for AS number
ranges, 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. Each
element of the array contains two AS numbers represented in decimal
format, separated by a hyphen, that represents the range of AS
numbers between the two AS numbers (inclusive), where values are in
increasing order (e.g., 100-200, not 200-100). A single AS number is
represented as a range of two identical AS numbers. AS numbers are
represented as 'asplain' as defined in [RFC5396]. Ranges MUST NOT
overlap.
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
"description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.",
"services": [
[
["64496-64496"],
[
"https://rir3.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["64497-64510", "65536-65551"],
[
"https://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 [RFC9082]
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.
6. Entity
Entities (such as contacts, registrants, or registrars) can be
queried by handle as described in [RFC9082]. Since there is no
global name space 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 qualified URL that can be
queried. The mechanism described in [RFC8521] MAY also be used.
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.
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:
* entities
* queries using search patterns that do not contain a terminating
string that matches some entries in the registries
* nameservers
* 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 [RFC8259]. Those elements are used to
describe the JSON structure of the registries.
10.1. Imported JSON Terms
OBJECT: a JSON object, defined in Section 4 of [RFC8259]
MEMBER: a member of a JSON object, defined in Section 4 of [RFC8259]
MEMBER-NAME: the name of a MEMBER, defined as a "string" in
Section 4 of [RFC8259]
MEMBER-VALUE: the value of a MEMBER, defined as a "value" in
Section 4 of [RFC8259]
ARRAY: an array, defined in Section 5 of [RFC8259]
ARRAY-VALUE: an element of an ARRAY, defined in Section 5 of
[RFC8259]
STRING: a "string", as defined in Section 7 of [RFC8259]
10.2. Registry Syntax
Using the above terms for the JSON structures, the syntax of a
registry is defined as follows:
rdap-bootstrap-registry: an OBJECT containing a MEMBER version and a
MEMBER publication, an optional MEMBER description, and a MEMBER
services-list
version: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "version" and MEMBER-VALUE a
STRING
publication: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "publication" and MEMBER-
VALUE a STRING
description: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "description" and MEMBER-
VALUE a STRING
services-list: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "services" and MEMBER-VALUE
a services-array
services-array: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service
service: an ARRAY of 2 elements, where the first ARRAY-VALUE is an
entry-list and the second ARRAY-VALUE is a service-uri-list
entry-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is an entry
entry: a STRING
service-uri-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service-uri
service-uri: a STRING
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 uses TLS [RFC8446].
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 Sections 3, 4, and 5, with the formal
syntax specified in Section 10. The registries MUST be accessible
only through HTTPS (TLS [RFC8446]) transport.
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 updates 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.
IANA has created a new top-level category on the Protocol Registries
page: <https://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 on-demand
download in the JSON format by the general public, 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.
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 has been put in
place by IANA to support the load. Since the publication of
[RFC7484], no issues have been reported regarding the load or the
service.
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
[RFC8259].
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
ordered in any way.
12.1. Bootstrap Service Registry for IPv4 Address Space
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
* a CIDR [RFC4632] specification of the network block being
registered
* 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:
* an IPv6 prefix [RFC5952] specification of the network block being
registered
* 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:
* a range of Autonomous System numbers being registered
* one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration
12.4. Bootstrap Service Registry for Domain Name Space
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
* a domain name attached to the root being registered
* 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of
Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5396, December 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5396>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
RFC 7480, DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
13.2. Informative References
[asreg] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers>.
[domainreg]
IANA, "Root Zone Database",
<https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db>.
[ipv4reg] IANA, "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.
[ipv6reg] IANA, "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-
assignments>.
[REDIRECT-RDAP]
Martinez, C.M., Ed., Zhou, L., Ed., and G. Rada,
"Redirection Service for Registration Data Access
Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
weirds-redirects-04, July 2014,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-weirds-
redirects-04>.
[RFC7071] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, DOI 10.17487/RFC7071,
November 2013, <https://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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
[RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
RFC 7481, DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
[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>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8521] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging", BCP 221, RFC 8521,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8521, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8521>.
[RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>.
[RFC9083] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>.
Appendix A. Changes since RFC 7484
There are no substantive changes except for minor clarifications.
This update is primarily to meet the requirements for moving to an
Internet Standard.
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 provided input and suggestions to the first version
of 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]. This new version [This document] received
comments and suggestions from Gavin Brown, Patrick Mevzek, John
Levine, Jasdip Singh, George Michaelson, Scott Hollenbeck, Russ
Housley, Joel Halpern, Lars Eggert, Benjamin Kaduk, Scott Kelly, Éric
Vyncke, John Scudder, Erik Kline, and Robert Wilton. Errata for RFC
7484 were submitted by Pieter Vandepitte and were applied to this
document.
Author's Address
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: https://viagenie.ca