draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-02.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-03.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: April 10, 2020 October 8, 2019 Expires: May 6, 2020 November 3, 2019
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-02 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-03
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
is the same as the standard searches and it can be reduced by is the same as the standard searches and it can be reduced by
implementing policies to deal with large result sets, while data implementing policies to deal with large result sets, while data
privacy risks can be prevented by RDAP access control privacy risks can be prevented by RDAP access control functionality.
functionalities. This document describes RDAP query extensions that In the RDAP context, an entity can be associated to any defined
allow clients to request a reverse search based on the domains- object class. Therefore, a reverse search can be applied to other
entities relationship. use cases than the classic domain-entity scenario. This document
describes an RDAP search query extension that allows clients to
request a reverse search based on the relationship between an object
and the associated entities.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 April 10, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. JSON in URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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's details, such as name and email. Even if starting from the owner's details, such as name and email. Even if
it has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g. it has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g.
uncovering trademark infringements, detecting cybercrime cases), its uncovering trademark infringements, detecting cybercrime cases), its
availability as a standardized 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
provide access to sensitive data under some permissible purposes and ([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2],[ICANN-RA]), which provide access to
according to adequate policies to enforce the requestor sensitive data under some permissible purposes and according to
accreditation, authentication, authorization, and terms and adequate policies to enforce the requestor accreditation,
conditions of data use. It is well known that such security policies authentication, authorization, and terms and conditions of data use.
are not implemented in Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP It is well known that such security policies are not implemented in
([RFC7481]). Therefore, RDAP permits a reverse search implementation Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP ([RFC7481]). Therefore,
complying with privacy protection principles. RDAP permits a reverse search implementation 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, the reverse search is adopting ad hoc strategies. Furthermore, the reverse search is
almost always performed by specifying an entity role (e.g. almost always performed by specifying an entity role (e.g.
registrant, technical contact) and this can contribute to restricting registrant, technical contact) and this can contribute to restricting
the result 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 or nameservers may be useful to registrars as well.
registrars as well. Usually, registries adopt out-of-band mechanisms Usually, registries adopt out-of-band solutions to provide results to
to provide results to registrars asking for reverse searches on their registrars asking for reverse searches on their domains. Possible
domains. Possible reasons for such requests are: 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 for 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 relationship with all RDAP objects Since an entity can be in relationship with any RDAP object
([RFC7483]), the availability of a reverse search can be common to ([RFC7483]), the availability of a reverse search can be common to
all RDAP query paths. all resource type path segments defined for search.
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 the reverse search based on the
entities relationship (the classic Reverse Whois scenario). The relationship between any object and the associated entities. 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
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. RDAP Path Segment Specification 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification
The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of those defined in RFC
in RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). The search paths are: 7482 ([RFC7482]). A generic reverse search path is described by the
syntax:
Syntax: domains?entityHandle=<reverse search pattern>
Syntax: domains?entityFn=<reverse search pattern>
Syntax: domains?entityEmail=<reverse search pattern>
Syntax: domains?entityAddr=<reverse search pattern>
The reverse search pattern is a JSON ([RFC8259]) object including two
members:
"value" (REQUIRED): represents the search pattern to be applied to {resource-type}/reverse/{role}?{property}=<search pattern>
the corresponding entity field and can be a JSON type primitive or
object;
"role" (OPTIONAL): is a string whose possible values are those The path segments are defined as in the following:
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 o resource-type: it MUST be one of resource type path segments
cases (Figure 1) are the same as specified in paragraph Section 3.2.3 defined in Section 3.2 of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]): "domains",
of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]). "nameservers" or "entities";
domains?entityHandle={"value":"CID-40*","role":"registrant"} o role: it MUST be one of the roles described in Section 10.2.4 of
RFC 7483 ([RFC7483]). For role independent reverse searches, the
value "entity" MUST be used;
domains?entityFn={"value":"Bobby*","role":"registrant"} o property: it identifies the entity property to be used in matching
the search pattern. A pre-defined list of properties includes:
fn, handle, email, city, country, cc. The mapping between such
properties and the RDAP fields is shown in Table 1. Servers MAY
implement additional properties to those defined in this document.
Figure 1: Examples of RDAP queries to find all domains related to any Partial string matching is allowed as defined in section 4.1 of RFC
registrant whose handle matches "CID-40*" and whose formatted name 7482 ([RFC7482]).
matches "Bobby*"
The last two reverse searches are considered by gTLD stakeholders +-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+
very useful to improve RDS searchability ([ICANN-RDS1], [ICANN-RA]). | Reverse search | RDAP property | RFC | RFC | RFC |
| property | | 7483 | 6350 | 8605 |
+-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| handle | handle | 5.1. | | |
| fn | vcard fn | | 6.2.1 | |
| email | vcard email | | 6.4.2 | |
| city | locality in vcard | | 6.3.1 | |
| | adr | | | |
| country | country name in | | 6.3.1 | |
| | vcard adr | | | |
| cc | country code in | | | 3.1 |
| | vcard adr | | | |
+-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+
Searches for domains by related entity email are specified using this Table 1: Mapping between the reverse search properties and the RDAP
form: fields
domains?entityEmail={"value":"XXXX","role":"ZZZZ"} https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/technical?handle=CID-40*
where XXXX is a search pattern representing an email address as
defined in RFC 5322 ([RFC5322]).
Searches for domains by related entity postal address are specified https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?fn=Bobby*
using this form:
domains?entityAddr={"value":YYYY,"role":"ZZZZ"} https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?cc=US
where YYYY is a JSON object containing the information described in https://example.com/rdap/entites/reverse/registrar?handle=RegistrarX
Section 2.4 of RFC 5733 ([RFC5733]), respectively: "street", "city",
"sp", "pc" and "cc" (Figure 2). All the members of the postal
address object are OPTIONAL but at least one is REQUIRED. The
constraints on the members are implicitly joined by AND.
domains?entityAddr={"value":{"cc":"CA","city":"Sydney"},"role":"registrant"} Figure 1: Examples of reverse search queries
Figure 2: Example of an RDAP query to find all domains related to any The "country" property can be used as an alternative to "cc" when
registrant whose postal address contains the country code equals to RDAP servers don't include the vCard "cc" parameter ([RFC8605]) in
"CA" and the city equals to "Sydney" their response.
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 Both handle and fn are used as standard path segments to search for
search for entities. With regards to the last two reverse searches, entities ([RFC7482]). With regards to the other reverse search
both email and postal address information are usually required by the properties, namely email, city and country code, the impact of their
registries but, while the former is usually mapped onto a DBMS usage on server processing is evaluated to be the same as other
indexed field, the latter is mapped onto a combination of non-indexed existing query capabilities (e.g. wildcard prefixed search pattern)
fields. As a consequence, while the former should not significantly so the risks to degrade the performance or to generate huge result
decrease the performance, the latter might have an impact on server sets can be mitigated by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting
processing. Anyway, this impact is evaluated to be the same as other the search functionality, limiting the rate of search requests
query capabilities already presented in RDAP (e.g. wildcard prefixed according to the user profile, truncating and paging the results,
search pattern) so the risks to generate huge result sets are the returning partial responses).
same as those related to other standard searches and can be mitigated
by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting the search
functionalities, limiting the rate of search requests according to
the user profile, truncating and paging the results, returning
partial responses).
3.1. JSON in URLs
Many web services, including RDAP, rely on the HTTP GET method to
take advantage of some of its features:
o GET requests can be cached;
o GET requests remain in the browser history;
o GET requests can be bookmarked.
Sometimes, it happens that such advantages should be combined with
the requirement to pass objects and arrays in the query string. JSON
is the best candidate as data interchange format, but it contains
some characters that are forbidden from appearing in a URL. Anyway,
escaping the invalid characters is not an issue because, on the
client side, modern browsers automatically encode URLs and, on the
server side, several URL encoding/decoding libraries for all web
development programming languages are available. The downside of URL
encoding is that it can make a pretty long URL, which, depending on
the initial length and the number of invalid characters, might exceed
the practical limit of web browsers (i.e. 2,000 characters).
Other solutions to pass a JSON expression in a URL could be:
o converting JSON to Base64 ([RFC4648]), but binary data are
unreadable;
o using a JSON variation that complies with URL specifications and
maintains readability like Rison ([RISON]), URLON ([URLON]) or
JSURL ([JSURL]).
The extensions proposed in this document rely on URL encoding because
it is widely supported and the risk to exceed the maximum URL length
is considered to be very unlikely in RDAP.
4. Implementation Status 4. Implementation Status
NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
to publication as an RFC. to publication as an RFC.
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
([RFC7942]). The description of implementations in this section is ([RFC7942]). The description of implementations in this section is
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 7, line 15
Another scenario consists of permitting reverse searches, which take Another scenario consists of permitting reverse searches, which take
into account only those entities that have previously given the into account only those entities that have previously given the
explicit 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]).
The specification of the entity role within the reverse search path
allows the RDAP servers to implement different authorization policies
on a per-role basis.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Scott Hollenbeck, Francisco The authors would like to acknowledge Tom Harrison, Scott Hollenbeck,
Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their contribution to Francisco Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their
this document. contribution to this document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the [RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8605] Hollenbeck, S. and R. Carney, "vCard Format Extensions:
ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP)", RFC 8605, DOI 10.17487/RFC8605, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8605>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[ICANN-RA] [ICANN-RA]
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]
skipping to change at page 9, line 38 skipping to change at page 9, line 20
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report- <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/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/final- <http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/final-
issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf>. issue-report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf>.
[JSURL] github.com, "JSURL", 2016,
<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
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RISON] github.com, "Rison - Compact Data in URIs", 2017,
<https://github.com/Nanonid/rison>.
[URLON] github.com, "URL Object Notation", 2017,
<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. 02: Revised the text.
03: Refactored the query model.
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. 37 change blocks. 
160 lines changed or deleted 107 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/