draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-04.txt   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-05.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: November 19, 2020 May 18, 2020 Expires: April 29, 2021 October 26, 2020
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-04 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-05
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. In the RDAP context, an entity can
referred as reverse search, respond to some needs not yet readily be associated to any defined object class. Therefore, a reverse
fulfilled by the current Whois protocol, they have raised concerns search can be applied to other use cases than the classic domain-
from two perspectives: server processing impact and data privacy. entity scenario. This document describes RDAP query extensions that
Anyway, the impact of the reverse queries on RDAP servers processing allow servers to provide a reverse search feature based on the
is the same as the standard searches and it can be reduced by relationship between any searchable object and the related entities.
implementing policies to deal with large result sets, while data
privacy risks can be prevented by RDAP access control functionality.
In the RDAP context, an entity can be associated to any defined
object class. Therefore, a reverse search can be applied to other
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 November 19, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 of Registration Directory Services [ICANN-RDS1] [ICANN-RDS2]
([ICANN-RDS1],[ICANN-RDS2],[ICANN-RA]), which provide access to [ICANN-RA], which provide access to sensitive data under some
sensitive data under some permissible purposes and according to permissible purposes and according to adequate policies to enforce
adequate policies to enforce the requestor accreditation, the requestor accreditation, authentication, authorization, and terms
authentication, authorization, and terms and conditions of data use. and conditions of data use. It is well known that such security
It is well known that such security policies are not implemented in policies are not implemented in Whois [RFC3912], while they are in
Whois ([RFC3912]), while they are in RDAP ([RFC7481]). Therefore, RDAP [RFC7481]. Therefore, RDAP permits a reverse search
RDAP permits a reverse search implementation complying with privacy implementation complying with privacy protection principles.
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 or nameservers may be useful to registrars as well. with contacts or nameservers may be useful to registrars as well.
Usually, registries adopt out-of-band solutions to provide results to Usually, registries adopt out-of-band solutions to provide results to
registrars asking for reverse searches on their domains. Possible registrars asking for reverse searches on their 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 an entity can be in relationship with any RDAP object 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
all resource type path segments defined for search. 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 the reverse search based on the query capabilities to enable the reverse search based on the
relationship between any object and the associated entities. 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 [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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "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.
2. RDAP Path Segment Specification 2. RDAP Path Segment Specification
The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of those defined in RFC The new search paths are OPTIONAL extensions of those defined in
7482 ([RFC7482]). A generic reverse search path is described by the [RFC7482]. A generic reverse search path is described by the syntax:
syntax:
{resource-type}/reverse/{role}?{property}=<search pattern> {resource-type}/reverse/{role}?{property}=<search pattern>
The path segments are defined as in the following: The path segments are defined as in the following:
o resource-type: it MUST be one of resource type path segments o resource-type: it MUST be one of resource type path segments
defined in Section 3.2 of RFC 7482 ([RFC7482]): "domains", defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC7482]: "domains", "nameservers" or
"nameservers" or "entities"; "entities";
o role: it MUST be one of the roles described in Section 10.2.4 of 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 [RFC7483]. For role independent reverse searches, the value
value "entity" MUST be used; "entity" MUST be used;
o property: it identifies the entity property to be used in matching o property: it identifies the entity property to be used in matching
the search pattern. A pre-defined list of properties includes: the search pattern. A pre-defined list of properties includes:
fn, handle, email, city, country, cc. The mapping between such fn, handle, email, city, country, cc. The mapping between such
properties and the RDAP fields is shown in Table 1. Servers MAY properties and the RDAP properties is shown in Table 1. Some of
the properties are related to jCard elements [RFC7095] but, being
jCard the JSON format for vCard [RFC6350], the corresponding
definitions are included in vCard specification. Servers MAY
implement additional properties to those defined in this document. implement additional properties to those defined in this document.
Partial string matching is allowed as defined in section 4.1 of RFC Partial string matching is allowed as defined in section 4.1 of
7482 ([RFC7482]). [RFC7482].
+-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+ +-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Reverse search | RDAP property | RFC | RFC | RFC | | Reverse search | RDAP property | RFC | RFC | RFC |
| property | | 7483 | 6350 | 8605 | | property | | 7483 | 6350 | 8605 |
+-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+ +-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| handle | handle | 5.1. | | | | handle | handle | 5.1. | | |
| fn | vcard fn | | 6.2.1 | | | fn | jCard fn | | 6.2.1 | |
| email | vcard email | | 6.4.2 | | | email | jCard email | | 6.4.2 | |
| city | locality in vcard | | 6.3.1 | | | city | locality in jCard | | 6.3.1 | |
| | adr | | | | | | adr | | | |
| country | country name in | | 6.3.1 | | | country | country name in | | 6.3.1 | |
| | vcard adr | | | | | | jCard adr | | | |
| cc | country code in | | | 3.1 | | cc | country code in | | | 3.1 |
| | vcard adr | | | | | | jCard adr | | | |
+-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+ +-------------------+--------------------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 1: Mapping between the reverse search properties and the RDAP Table 1: Mapping between the reverse search properties and the RDAP
fields properties
https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/technical?handle=CID-40* https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/technical?handle=CID-40*
https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?fn=Bobby* https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?fn=Bobby*
https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?cc=US https://example.com/rdap/domains/reverse/registrant?cc=US
https://example.com/rdap/entites/reverse/registrar?handle=RegistrarX https://example.com/rdap/entites/reverse/registrar?handle=RegistrarX
Figure 1: Examples of reverse search queries Figure 1: Examples of reverse search queries
The "country" property can be used as an alternative to "cc" when The "country" property can be used as an alternative to "cc" when
RDAP servers don't include the vCard "cc" parameter ([RFC8605]) in RDAP servers don't include the jCard "cc" parameter [RFC8605] in
their response. their response.
3. Implementation Considerations 3. RDAP Conformance
Servers complying with this specification MUST include the value
"reverse_search" in the rdapConformance property of the help response
[RFC7483]. The information needed to register this value in the
"RDAP Extensions" registry is described in Section 6.
4. Implementation Considerations
The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible. The implementation of the proposed extension is technically feasible.
Both handle and fn are used as standard path segments to search for Both handle and fn are used as standard path segments to search for
entities ([RFC7482]). With regards to the other reverse search entities [RFC7482]. With regards to the other reverse search
properties, namely email, city and country code, the impact of their properties, namely email, city and country code, the impact of their
usage on server processing is evaluated to be the same as other usage on server processing is evaluated to be the same as other
existing query capabilities (e.g. wildcard prefixed search pattern) existing query capabilities (e.g. wildcard prefixed search pattern)
so the risks to degrade the performance or to generate huge result so the risks to degrade the performance or to generate huge result
sets can be mitigated by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting sets can be mitigated by adopting the same policies (e.g. restricting
the search functionality, limiting the rate of search requests the search functionality, limiting the rate of search requests
according to the user profile, truncating and paging the results, according to the user profile, truncating and paging the results,
returning partial responses). returning partial responses).
4. Implementation Status 5. 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 [RFC7942].
([RFC7942]). The description of implementations in this section is The description of implementations in this section is intended to
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
other implementations may exist. exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
4.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics
of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it
Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/
Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries
using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD.
Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research
implementation. implementation.
Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification. described in this specification.
Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
5. Privacy Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP
Extensions Registry:
Extension identifier: reverse_search
Registry operator: Any
Published specification: This document.
Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: This extension describes reverse search query
patterns for RDAP.
7. 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 a law. specific task in the public interest that is set out in a law.
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 4
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 a law. specific task in the public interest that is set out in a law.
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 8. 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 [RFC7481].
([RFC7481]).
The specification of the entity role within the reverse search path The specification of the entity role within the reverse search path
allows the RDAP servers to implement different authorization policies allows the RDAP servers to implement different authorization policies
on a per-role basis. on a per-role basis.
7. IANA Considerations 9. Acknowledgements
This document has no actions for IANA.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Tom Harrison, Scott Hollenbeck, The authors would like to acknowledge Tom Harrison, Scott Hollenbeck,
Francisco Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their Francisco Arias, Gustavo Lozano and Eduardo Alvarez for their
contribution to this document. contribution to this document.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.
[RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7095>.
[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 8, line 35 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
[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>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[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>.
[RFC8605] Hollenbeck, S. and R. Carney, "vCard Format Extensions: [RFC8605] Hollenbeck, S. and R. Carney, "vCard Format Extensions:
ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP)", RFC 8605, DOI 10.17487/RFC8605, May 2019, (RDAP)", RFC 8605, DOI 10.17487/RFC8605, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8605>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8605>.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. 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]
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
skipping to change at page 9, line 22 skipping to change at page 9, line 22
[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>.
[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.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
RESTful_Best_Practices-v1_1.pdf>. fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
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. 03: Refactored the query model.
04: Keepalive refresh. 04: Keepalive refresh.
05: Reorganized "Abstract". Corrected "Conventions Used in This
Document" section. Added "RDAP Conformance" section. Changed
"IANA Considerations" section. Added references to RFC7095 and
RFC8174. Other minor edits.
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. 39 change blocks. 
91 lines changed or deleted 114 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/