draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-01.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-02.txt 
Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft M. Martinelli Internet-Draft M. Martinelli
Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Expires: October 13, 2019 April 11, 2019 Expires: April 10, 2020 October 8, 2019
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-01 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-02
Abstract Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include query The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include query
capabilities to find the list of domains related to a set of entities capabilities to find the list of domains related to a set of entities
matching a given search pattern. Even if such capabilities, commonly matching a given search pattern. Even if such capabilities, commonly
referred as reverse search, respond to some needs not yet readily referred as reverse search, respond to some needs not yet readily
fulfilled by the current Whois protocol, they have raised concerns fulfilled by the current Whois protocol, they have raised concerns
from two perspectives: server processing impact and data privacy. from two perspectives: server processing impact and data privacy.
Anyway, the impact of the reverse queries on RDAP servers processing Anyway, the impact of the reverse queries on RDAP servers processing
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 10, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Reverse Whois is a service provided by many web applications that Reverse Whois is a service provided by many web applications that
allow users to find domain names owned by an individual or a company allow users to find domain names owned by an individual or a company
starting from the owner details, such as name and email. Even if it starting from the owner's details, such as name and email. Even if
has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g. uncovering it has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g.
trademark infringements, detecting cybercrime cases), its uncovering trademark infringements, detecting cybercrime cases), its
availability as a standardised Whois capability has been objected for availability as a standardized Whois capability has been objected for
two main reasons, which now don't seem to conflict with an RDAP two main reasons, which now don't seem to conflict with an RDAP
implementation. implementation.
The first objection has been caused by the potential risks of privacy The first objection has been caused by the potential risks of privacy
violation. However, TLDs community is considering a new generation violation. However, TLDs community is considering a new generation
of Registration Directory Services ([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2]), which of Registration Directory Services ([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2]), which
provide access to sensitive data under some permissible purposes and provide access to sensitive data under some permissible purposes and
according to adequate policies to enforce the requestor according to adequate policies to enforce the requestor
accreditation, authentication, authorization, and terms and accreditation, authentication, authorization, and terms and
conditions of data use. It is well known that such security policies conditions of data use. It is well known that such security policies
are not implemented in Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP are not implemented in Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP
([RFC7481]). Therefore, RDAP permits a reverse search implementation ([RFC7481]). Therefore, RDAP permits a reverse search implementation
complying with privacy protection principles. complying with privacy protection principles.
Another objection to the implementation of a reverse search Another objection to the implementation of a reverse search
capability has been connected with its impact on server processing. capability has been connected with its impact on server processing.
Since RDAP supports search queries, the impact of both standard and Since RDAP supports search queries, the impact of both standard and
reverse searches is equivalent and can be mitigated by servers reverse searches is equivalent and can be mitigated by servers
adopting ad hoc strategies. Furthermore, reverse search is almost adopting ad hoc strategies. Furthermore, the reverse search is
always performed by specifying an entity role (e.g. registrant, almost always performed by specifying an entity role (e.g.
technical contact) and this can contribute to restricting the result registrant, technical contact) and this can contribute to restricting
set. the result set.
Reverse searches, such as finding the list of domain names associated Reverse searches, such as finding the list of domain names associated
with contacts, nameservers or DNSSEC keys, may be useful to with contacts, nameservers or DNSSEC keys, may be useful to
registrars as well. Usually, registries adopt out-of-band mechanisms registrars as well. Usually, registries adopt out-of-band mechanisms
to provide results to registrars asking for reverse searches on their to provide results to registrars asking for reverse searches on their
domains. Possible reasons of such requests are: domains. Possible reasons for such requests are:
o the loss of synchronization between the registrar database and the o the loss of synchronization between the registrar database and the
registry database; registry database;
o the need of such data to perform massive EPP ([RFC5730]) updates o the need for such data to perform massive EPP ([RFC5730]) updates
(e.g. changing the contacts of a set of domains, etc.). (e.g. changing the contacts of a set of domains, etc.).
Currently, RDAP does not provide any way for a client to search for Currently, RDAP does not provide any way for a client to search for
the collection of domains associated with an entity ([RFC7482]). A the collection of domains associated with an entity ([RFC7482]). A
query (lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities query (lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities
related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar, related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar,
administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation
is not allowed. Only reverse searches to find the collection of is not allowed. Only reverse searches to find the collection of
domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested. domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested.
Since entities can be in relation with all RDAP objects ([RFC7483]), Since entities can be in relationship with all RDAP objects
the availability of a reverse search can be common to all RDAP query ([RFC7483]), the availability of a reverse search can be common to
paths. all RDAP query paths.
The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP
query capabilities to enable reverse search based on the domains- query capabilities to enable reverse search based on the domains-
entities relationship (the classic Reverse Whois scenario). The entities relationship (the classic Reverse Whois scenario). The
extension is implemented by adding new path segments (i.e. search extension is implemented by adding new path segments (i.e. search
paths) and using a RESTful web service ([REST]). The service is paths) and using a RESTful web service ([REST]). The service is
implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) ([RFC7230]) implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) ([RFC7230])
and the conventions described in RFC 7480 ([RFC7480]). and the conventions described in RFC 7480 ([RFC7480]).
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 19
Syntax: domains?entityHandle=<reverse search pattern> Syntax: domains?entityHandle=<reverse search pattern>
Syntax: domains?entityFn=<reverse search pattern> Syntax: domains?entityFn=<reverse search pattern>
Syntax: domains?entityEmail=<reverse search pattern> Syntax: domains?entityEmail=<reverse search pattern>
Syntax: domains?entityAddr=<reverse search pattern> Syntax: domains?entityAddr=<reverse search pattern>
The reverse search pattern is a JSON ([RFC8259]) object including two The reverse search pattern is a JSON ([RFC8259]) object including two
members: "value" and "role". The "value" member represents the members:
search pattern to be applied to the corresponding entity field and
can be a JSON type primitive or object. The "role" member is a "value" (REQUIRED): represents the search pattern to be applied to
string whose possible values are those detailed in Section 10.2.4 of the corresponding entity field and can be a JSON type primitive or
RFC 7483 ([RFC7483]). The former is REQUIRED while the latter is object;
OPTIONAL to allow RDAP servers to provide reverse search capabilities
without specifying any role. "role" (OPTIONAL): is a string whose possible values are those
detailed in Section 10.2.4 of RFC 7483 ([RFC7483]). When it is
missing, the reverse search is performed without considering the
entity role.
The search patterns corresponding to the "value" in the first two The search patterns corresponding to the "value" in the first two
cases (Figure 1) are the same as specified in paragraph Section 3.2.3 cases (Figure 1) are the same as specified in paragraph Section 3.2.3
of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]).
domains?entityHandle={"value":"CID-40*","role":"registrant"} domains?entityHandle={"value":"CID-40*","role":"registrant"}
domains?entityFn={"value":"Bobby*","role":"registrant"} domains?entityFn={"value":"Bobby*","role":"registrant"}
Figure 1: Examples of RDAP queries to find all domains related to a Figure 1: Examples of RDAP queries to find all domains related to any
registrant whose handle matches "CID-40*" and whose formatted name registrant whose handle matches "CID-40*" and whose formatted name
matches "Bobby*" matches "Bobby*"
The last two reverse searches are considered by gTLD stakeholders The last two reverse searches are considered by gTLD stakeholders
very useful to improve RDS searchability ([ICANN-RDS1], [ICANN-RA]). very useful to improve RDS searchability ([ICANN-RDS1], [ICANN-RA]).
Searches for domains by related entity email are specified using this Searches for domains by related entity email are specified using this
form: form:
domains?entityEmail={"value":"XXXX","role":"ZZZZ"} domains?entityEmail={"value":"XXXX","role":"ZZZZ"}
skipping to change at page 5, line 18 skipping to change at page 5, line 20
domains?entityAddr={"value":YYYY,"role":"ZZZZ"} domains?entityAddr={"value":YYYY,"role":"ZZZZ"}
where YYYY is a JSON object containing the information described in where YYYY is a JSON object containing the information described in
Section 2.4 of RFC 5733 ([RFC5733]), respectively: "street", "city", Section 2.4 of RFC 5733 ([RFC5733]), respectively: "street", "city",
"sp", "pc" and "cc" (Figure 2). All the members of the postal "sp", "pc" and "cc" (Figure 2). All the members of the postal
address object are OPTIONAL but at least one is REQUIRED. The address object are OPTIONAL but at least one is REQUIRED. The
constraints on the members are implicitly joined by AND. constraints on the members are implicitly joined by AND.
domains?entityAddr={"value":{"cc":"CA","city":"Sydney"},"role":"registrant"} domains?entityAddr={"value":{"cc":"CA","city":"Sydney"},"role":"registrant"}
Figure 2: Example of a RDAP query to find all domains related to a Figure 2: Example of an RDAP query to find all domains related to any
registrant whose postal address contains the country code equals to registrant whose postal address contains the country code equals to
"CA" and the city equals to "Sydney" "CA" and the city equals to "Sydney"
3. Implementation Considerations 3. Implementation Considerations
The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible. The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible.
The search paths "handle" and "fn" are used as standard paths to The search paths "handle" and "fn" are used as standard paths to
search for entities. With regards to the last two reverse searches, search for entities. With regards to the last two reverse searches,
both email and postal address information are usually required by the both email and postal address information are usually required by the
registries but, while the former is usually mapped onto a DBMS registries but, while the former is usually mapped onto a DBMS
indexed field, the latter is mapped onto a combination of non-indexed indexed field, the latter is mapped onto a combination of non-indexed
fields. As a consequence while the former should not significantly fields. As a consequence, while the former should not significantly
decrease the performance, the latter might have an impact on server decrease the performance, the latter might have an impact on server
processing. Anyway, this impact is evaluated to be the same as other processing. Anyway, this impact is evaluated to be the same as other
query capabilities already presented in RDAP (e.g. wildcard prefixed query capabilities already presented in RDAP (e.g. wildcard prefixed
search pattern) so the risks to generate huge result sets are the search pattern) so the risks to generate huge result sets are the
same as those related to other standard searches and can be mitigated same as those related to other standard searches and can be mitigated
by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting search by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting the search
functionalities, limiting the rate of search requests according to functionalities, limiting the rate of search requests according to
the user profile, truncating and paging the results, returning the user profile, truncating and paging the results, returning
partial responses). partial responses).
3.1. JSON in URLs 3.1. JSON in URLs
Many web services, including RDAP, rely on the HTTP GET method to Many web services, including RDAP, rely on the HTTP GET method to
take advantage from some of its features: take advantage of some of its features:
o GET requests can be cached; o GET requests can be cached;
o GET requests remain in the browser history; o GET requests remain in the browser history;
o GET requests can be bookmarked. o GET requests can be bookmarked.
Sometimes, it happens that such advantages should be combined with Sometimes, it happens that such advantages should be combined with
the requirement to pass objects and arrays in the query string. JSON the requirement to pass objects and arrays in the query string. JSON
is the best candidate as data interchange format, but it contains is the best candidate as data interchange format, but it contains
some characters that are forbidden from appearing in a URL. Anyway, some characters that are forbidden from appearing in a URL. Anyway,
escaping the invalid characters is not an issue because, on the escaping the invalid characters is not an issue because, on the
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 7, line 31
5. Privacy Considerations 5. Privacy Considerations
The use of the capability described in this document MUST be The use of the capability described in this document MUST be
compliant with the rules about privacy protection each RDAP provider compliant with the rules about privacy protection each RDAP provider
is subject to. Sensitive registration data MUST be protected and is subject to. Sensitive registration data MUST be protected and
accessible for permissible purposes only. Therefore, RDAP servers accessible for permissible purposes only. Therefore, RDAP servers
MUST provide reverse search only to those requestors who are MUST provide reverse search only to those requestors who are
authorized according to a lawful basis. Some potential users of this authorized according to a lawful basis. Some potential users of this
capability include registrars searching for their own domains and capability include registrars searching for their own domains and
operators in the exercise of an official authority or performing a operators in the exercise of an official authority or performing a
specific task in the public interest that is set out in law. Another specific task in the public interest that is set out in a law.
scenario consists of permitting reverse searches, which take into Another scenario consists of permitting reverse searches, which take
account only those entities that have previously given the explicit into account only those entities that have previously given the
consent for publishing and processing their personal data. explicit consent for publishing and processing their personal data.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Security services required to provide controlled access to the Security services required to provide controlled access to the
operations specified in this document are described in RFC 7481 operations specified in this document are described in RFC 7481
([RFC7481]). ([RFC7481]).
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
skipping to change at page 9, line 28 skipping to change at page 9, line 28
Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
"Registry Agreement", July 2017, "Registry Agreement", July 2017,
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/
agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>. agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf>.
[ICANN-RDS1] [ICANN-RDS1]
Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
"Final Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD "Final Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD
Directory Services: A Next-Generation Registration Directory Services: A Next-Generation Registration
Directory Service (RDS)", June 2014, Directory Service (RDS)", June 2014,
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-
final-report-06jun14-en.pdf>. 06jun14-en.pdf>.
[ICANN-RDS2] [ICANN-RDS2]
Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers,
"Final Issue Report on a Next-Generation gTLD RDS to "Final Issue Report on a Next-Generation gTLD RDS to
Replace WHOIS", October 2015, Replace WHOIS", October 2015,
<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/ <http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-
final-issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf>. issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf>.
[JSURL] github.com, "JSURL", 2016, [JSURL] github.com, "JSURL", 2016,
<https://github.com/Sage/jsurl>. <https://github.com/Sage/jsurl>.
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", 2000, Network-based Software Architectures", 2000,
<http://www.restapitutorial.com/media/ <http://www.restapitutorial.com/media/
RESTful_Best_Practices-v1_1.pdf>. RESTful_Best_Practices-v1_1.pdf>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
skipping to change at page 10, line 21 skipping to change at page 10, line 21
<https://github.com/Nanonid/rison>. <https://github.com/Nanonid/rison>.
[URLON] github.com, "URL Object Notation", 2017, [URLON] github.com, "URL Object Notation", 2017,
<https://github.com/cerebral/urlon>. <https://github.com/cerebral/urlon>.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
00: Initial working group version ported from draft-loffredo-regext- 00: Initial working group version ported from draft-loffredo-regext-
rdap-reverse-search-04 rdap-reverse-search-04
01: Updated "Privacy Considerations" section. 01: Updated "Privacy Considerations" section.
02: Revised the text.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mario Loffredo Mario Loffredo
IIT-CNR/Registro.it IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Via Moruzzi,1 Via Moruzzi,1
Pisa 56124 Pisa 56124
IT IT
Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 40 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/