[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Registration Protocols Extensions                            M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft                                             M. Martinelli
Intended status: Standards Track                     IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Expires: December 20, 2018                                 S. Hollenbeck
                                                           Verisign Labs
                                                           June 18, 2018


  Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters for Result
                           Sorting and Paging
            draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-04

Abstract

   The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include core
   functionality for clients to provide sorting and paging parameters
   for control of large result sets.  This omission can lead to
   unpredictable server processing of queries and client processing of
   responses.  This unpredictability can be greatly reduced if clients
   can provide servers with their preferences for managing response
   values.  This document describes RDAP query extensions that allow
   clients to specify their preferences for sorting and paging result
   sets.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  RDAP Query Parameter Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Paging Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  "count" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  "sortby" Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  "limit" and "offset" Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.4.1.  Representing Paging Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Negative Answers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  RDAP Conformance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Considerations about Paging Implementation  . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.1.  IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  Google Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Registry of References to RDAP Properties . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  Introduction

   The availability of functionality for result sorting and paging
   provides benefits to both clients and servers in the implementation
   of RESTful services [REST].  These benefits include:

   o  Reducing the server response bandwidth requirements;
   o  Improving server response time;
   o  Improving query precision and, consequently, obtaining more
      reliable results;
   o  Decreasing server query processing load;
   o  Reducing client response processing time.




Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   Approaches to implementing features for result sorting and paging can
   be grouped into two main categories:

   1.  Sorting and paging are implemented through the introduction of
       additional parameters in the query string (i.e.  ODATA protocol
       [OData-Part1]);

   2.  Information related to the number of results and the specific
       portion of the result set to be returned, in addition to a set of
       ready-made links for the result set scrolling, are inserted in
       the HTTP header of the request/response.

   However, there are some drawbacks associated with use of the HTTP
   header.  First, the header properties cannot be set directly from a
   web browser.  Moreover, in an HTTP session, the information on the
   status (i.e. the session identifier) is usually inserted in the
   header or in the cookies, while the information on the resource
   identification or the search type is included in the query string.
   The second approach is therefore not compliant with the HTTP standard
   [RFC7230].  As a result, this document describes a specification
   based on use of query parameters.

   Currently the RDAP protocol [RFC7482] defines two query types:

   o  lookup: the server returns only one object;
   o  search: the server returns a collection of objects.

   While the lookup query does not raise issues in the management of
   large result sets, the search query can potentially generate a large
   result set that could be truncated according to the limits of the
   server.  In addition, it is not possible to obtain the total number
   of the objects found that might be returned in a search query
   response [RFC7483].  Lastly, there is no way to specify sort criteria
   to return the most relevant objects at the beginning of the result
   set.  Therefore, the client could traverse the whole result set to
   find the relevant objects or, due to truncation, could not find them
   at all.

   The protocol described in this specification extends RDAP query
   capabilities to enable result sorting and paging, by adding new query
   parameters that can be applied to RDAP search path segments.  The
   service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
   [RFC7230] and the conventions described in RFC 7480 [RFC7480].

   The implementation of these parameters is technically feasible, as
   operators for counting, sorting and paging rows are currently
   supported by the major RDBMSs.  Impact on the current state of RDAP
   implementation is estimated to be quite low.



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  RDAP Query Parameter Specification

   The new query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments
   defined in RFC 7482 [RFC7482].  They are as follows:

   o  "count": a boolean value that allows a client to request the total
      number of objects found (that due to truncation can be different
      from the number of returned objects);

   o  "sortby": a string value that allows a client to request a
      specific sort order for the result set;

   o  "limit" and "offset": numeric values that allow a client to
      request a specific portion of the entire result set.

   Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] is used in the following
   sections to describe the formal syntax of these new parameters.

2.1.  Paging Metadata

   Except for sorting, the implementation of counting and paging
   requires servers to provide additional information in their
   responses.  Such information is collected in a new data structure
   named "paging_metadata" which contains the following fields:

   o  "totalCount": a numeric value representing the total number of
      objects found;

   o  "pageCount": a numeric value representing the number of objects
      returned in the current page;

   o  "offset": a numeric value identifying the start of current page in
      the result set;

   o  "nextOffset": a numeric value identifying the start of the next
      page in the result set or null if the result set has been
      completely scrolled;

   o  "links": an array of links as described in RFC 8288 [RFC8288]
      containing only the reference to next page.





Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   The "totalCount" field is provided if the query contains the "count"
   parameter.  Anyway, servers MAY provide such information without
   implementing the "count" parameter.

   The other fields appear when pagination occurs.  In this
   specification, only the forward pagination is dealt because it is
   considered satisfactory in order to traverse the result set.  If a
   server should also implement backward pagination, an appropriate
   field (e.g. "prevOffset") identifying the start of the previous page
   should be added.

   FOR DISCUSSION: Should the metadata described in this specification
   be part of a more general "metadata" property including other
   contents (e.g rate limits, information about the server, information
   about the response)?

2.2.  "count" Parameter

   Currently the RDAP protocol does not allow a client to determine the
   total number of the results in a query response when the result set
   is truncated.  This is rather inefficient because the user cannot
   evaluate the query precision and, at the same time, cannot receive
   information that could be relevant.

   The new parameter "count" provides additional functionality
   (Figure 1) that allows a client to request information from the
   server that specifies the total number of elements matching a
   particular search pattern.


   https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&count=true

       Figure 1: Example of RDAP query reporting the count parameter

   The ABNF syntax is the following:

      count = "count" EQ ( trueValue / falseValue )
      trueValue = ("true" / "yes" / "1")
      falseValue = ("false" / "no" / "0")
      EQ = "="

   A trueValue means that the server MUST provide the total number of
   the objects in the "totalCount" field of the "paging_metadata" data
   structure (Figure 2).  A falseValue means that the server MUST NOT
   provide this number.






Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   {
     "rdapConformance": [
           "rdap_level_0",
           "paging_level_0"
     ],
     ...
     "paging_metadata": {
       "totalCount": 73
     },
     "domainSearchResults": [
       ...
     ]
   }

      Figure 2: Example of RDAP response with "paging_metadata" data
                structure containing the "totalCount" field

2.3.  "sortby" Parameter

   The RDAP protocol does not provide any capability to specify response
   value sort criteria.  A server could implement a default sorting
   scheme according to the object class, but this feature is not
   mandatory and might not meet user requirements.  Sorting can be
   addressed by the client, but this solution is rather inefficient.
   Sorting and paging features provided by the DBMS used by the RDAP
   server could help avoid truncation of relevant results and allow for
   scrolling the result set using subsequent queries.

   The "sortby" parameter allows the client to ask the server to sort
   the results according to the values of one or more properties and
   according to the sort direction of each property.  The ABNF syntax is
   the following:

      sortby = "sortby" EQ sortbyItem *( "," sortbyItem )
      sortbyItem = property-ref [":" ( "a" / "d" ) ]

   "a" means that the ascending sort MUST be applied, "d" means that the
   descending sort MUST be applied.  If the sort direction is absent, an
   ascending sort MUST be applied (Figure 3).

   In the sortby ABNF syntax, property-ref represents a reference to a
   property of an RDAP object.  Such a reference could be expressed by
   using a JSON Path.  The JSON Path in a JSON document [RFC8259] is
   equivalent to the XPath [W3C.CR-xpath-31-20161213] in a XML document.
   For example, the JSON Path to select the value of the ldhName
   property inside an RDAP domain object is "$.ldhName", where $
   identifies the root of the document (DOM).  Another way to select a
   value inside a JSON document is the JSON Pointer [RFC6901].  While



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   JSON Path or JSON Pointer are both standard ways to select any value
   inside JSON data, neither is particularly easy to use (e.g.
   "$.events[?(@.eventAction='registration')].eventDate" is the JSON
   Path expression of the registration date in a RDAP domain object).

   Therefore, this specification provides a definition of property-ref
   in terms of RDAP properties.  However, not all the RDAP properties
   are suitable to be used in sort criteria, such as:

   o  properties providing service information (e.g. links, notices,
      remarks, etc.);
   o  multivalued properties (e.g. status, roles, variants, etc.);
   o  properties modeling relationships to other objects (e.g.
      entities).

   On the contrary, some properties expressed as values of other
   properties (e.g. registration date) could be used in such a context.

   In the following, a list of the proposed properties for sort criteria
   is presented.  The properties are divided in two groups: object
   common properties and object specific properties.

   o  Object common properties.  Object common properties are derived
      from the merge of the "eventAction" and the "eventDate"
      properties.  The following values of sortby are defined:

      *  registrationDate
      *  reregistrationDate
      *  lastChangedDate
      *  expirationDate
      *  deletionDate
      *  reinstantiationDate
      *  transferDate
      *  lockedDate
      *  unlockedDate

   o  Object specific properties.  With regard to the specific
      properties, some of them are already defined among the query
      paths.  In the following the list of the proposed sorting
      properties, grouped by objects, is shown:

      *  Domain: ldhName
      *  Nameserver: ldhName, ipV4, ipV6.
      *  Entity: fn, handle, org, email, tel, country, countryName,
         locality.

   In the following, the correspondence between the values of sortby
   parameter and the RDAP object properties is shown (Table 1):



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   +-----------+------------+------------------+-----------+-----------+
   | Object    | sortby     | Object property  | Reference | Reference |
   | class     | value      |                  | in RFC    | in RFC    |
   |           |            |                  | 7483      | 6350      |
   +-----------+------------+------------------+-----------+-----------+
   | Searchabl | Common     | eventAction      | 4.5.      |           |
   | e objects | properties | values suffixed  |           |           |
   |           |            | by "Date"        |           |           |
   |           |            |                  |           |           |
   | Domain    | ldhName    | ldhName          | 5.3.      |           |
   |           |            |                  |           |           |
   | Nameserve | ldhName    | ldhName          | 5.2.      |           |
   | r         |            |                  |           |           |
   |           | ipV4       | v4 ipAddress     | 5.2.      |           |
   |           | ipV6       | v6 ipAddress     | 5.2.      |           |
   |           |            |                  |           |           |
   | Entity    | handle     | handle           | 5.1.      |           |
   |           | fn         | vcard fn         | 5.1.      | 6.2.1     |
   |           | org        | vcard org        | 5.1.      | 6.6.4     |
   |           | tel        | vcard tel with   | 5.1.      | 6.4.1     |
   |           |            | type="voice"     |           |           |
   |           | email      | vcard email      | 5.1.      | 6.4.2     |
   |           | country    | country code (as | 5.1.      | 6.3.1     |
   |           |            | given in         |           |           |
   |           |            | ISO.3166.1988    |           |           |
   |           |            | [ISO.3166.1988]) |           |           |
   |           |            | of the country   |           |           |
   |           |            | name in vcard    |           |           |
   |           |            | adr              |           |           |
   |           | countryNam | country name in  | 5.1.      | 6.3.1     |
   |           | e          | vcard adr        |           |           |
   |           | locality   | locality in      | 5.1.      | 6.3.1     |
   |           |            | vcard adr        |           |           |
   +-----------+------------+------------------+-----------+-----------+

                  Table 1: Sorting properties definition

   With regard to the definitions in Table 1, some further
   considerations must be made to disambiguate cases where the RDAP
   object property is multivalued:

   o  Even if a nameserver can have multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses,
      the most common configuration includes one address for each IP
      version.  Therefore, the assumption of having a single IPv4 and/or
      IPv6 value for a nameserver cannot be considered too stringent.

   o  With the exception of handle values, all the sorting properties
      defined for entity objects can be multivalued according to the



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


      definition of vCard as given in RFC6350 [RFC6350].  When more than
      a value is reported, sorting can be applied to the preferred value
      identified by the parameter pref="1".

   Each RDAP provider MAY define other sorting properties than those
   shown in this document.  (FOR DISCUSSION: how should those properties
   be defined?  Is an IANA registry appropriate?)


 https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&sortby=ldhName

 https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&sortby=registrationDate:d

 https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&sortby=lockedDate,ldhName

      Figure 3: Examples of RDAP query reporting the sortby parameter

2.4.  "limit" and "offset" Parameters

   An RDAP query could return a response with hundreds of objects,
   especially when partial matching is used.  For that reason, two
   parameters addressing result pagination are defined to make responses
   easier to handle:

   o  "limit": means that the server MUST return the first N objects of
      the result set in the response;
   o  "offset": means that the server MUST skip the first N objects and
      MUST return objects starting from position N+1.

   The ABNF syntax is the following:

      EQ = "="
      limit = "limit" EQ positive-number
      offset = "offset" EQ positive-number
      positive-number = non-zero-digit *digit
      non-zero-digit = "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / "5" / "6" / "7" / "8" /
      "9"
      digit = "0" / non-zero-digit

   When limit and offset are used together, they allow implementation of
   result pagination.  The following examples illustrate requests to
   return, respectively, the first 5 objects, the set of objects
   starting from position 6, and first 5 objects starting from position
   11 of the result set (Figure 4).







Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&limit=5

   https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&offset=5

   https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&limit=5&offset=10

      Figure 4: Examples of RDAP query reporting the limit and offset
                                parameters

2.4.1.  Representing Paging Links

   An RDAP server MAY use the "links" array of the "paging_metadata"
   data structure to provide a ready-made reference [RFC8288] to the
   next page of the result set (Figure 5).  Examples of additional "rel"
   values are "first", "last", "prev".




































Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


 {
   "rdapConformance": [
     "rdap_level_0",
     "paging_level_0"
   ],
   ...
   "notices": [
     {
       "title": "Search query limits",
       "type": "result set truncated due to excessive load",
       "description": [
       "search results for domains are limited to 10"
       ]
     }
   ],
   "paging_metadata": {
     "totalCount": 73,
     "pageCount": 10,
     "offset" : 10,
     "nextOffset" : 20,
     "links": [
       {
         "value": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com",
         "rel": "next",
         "href": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&limit=10
                 &offset=10",
         "title": "Result Pagination Link",
         "type": "application/rdap+json"
       }
     ]
   },
   "domainSearchResults": [
     ...
   ]
 }

   Figure 5: Example of a "paging_metadata" instance to implement result
                   pagination based on offset and limit

3.  Negative Answers

   The value constraints for the parameters are defined by their ABNF
   syntax.  Therefore, each request providing an invalid value for a
   parameter SHOULD obtain an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code.  The
   same response SHOULD be returned if the client provides an
   unsupported value for the sortby parameter in both single and multi
   sort.




Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   The server can provide a different response when it supports the
   limit and/or offset parameters and the client submits values that are
   out of the valid ranges.  The possible cases are:

   o  If the client submits a value for the limit parameter that is
      greater than the number of objects to be processed, it is
      RECOMMENDED that server returns a response including only the
      processed objects.

   o  If the client submits a value for the offset parameter that is
      greater than the number of objects to be processed, it is
      RECOMMENDED that server returns an HTTP 404 (Not Found) response
      code.

   Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding
   the negative answer in the HTTP entity body.

4.  RDAP Conformance

   Servers returning the "paging_metadata" data structure in their
   responses MUST include "paging_level_0" in the rdapConformance array.

5.  Implementation Considerations

   The implementation of the new parameters is technically feasible, as
   operators for counting, sorting and paging are currently supported by
   the major RDBMSs.

   In the following, the match between the new defined parameters and
   the SQL operators is shown (Table 2):





















Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | New query      | SQL operator                                     |
   | parameter      |                                                  |
   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | count          | count(*) query without offset, limit and order   |
   |                | by                                               |
   |                | [MYSQL-COUNT],[POSTGRES-COUNT],[ORACLE-COUNT]    |
   |                |                                                  |
   | sortby         | order by                                         |
   |                | [MYSQL-SORT],[POSTGRES-SORT],[ORACLE-SORT]       |
   |                |                                                  |
   | limit          | limit n (in MySql [MYSQL-LIMIT] and Postgres     |
   |                | [POSTGRES-LIMIT])                                |
   |                | FETCH FIRST n ROWS ONLY (in Oracle               |
   |                | [ORACLE-LIMIT])                                  |
   |                |                                                  |
   | offset         | offset m (in Postgres)                           |
   |                | OFFSET m ROWS (in Oracle)                        |
   |                |                                                  |
   | limit + offset | limit n offset m (in MySql and Postgres)         |
   |                | OFFSET m ROWS FETCH NEXT n ROWS ONLY (in Oracle) |
   +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+

              Table 2: New query parameters vs. SQL operators

   With regard to Oracle, Table 2 reports only one of the three methods
   that can be used to implement limit and offset parameters.  The
   others are described in [ORACLE-ROWNUM] and [ORACLE-ROW-NUMBER].

   In addition, similar operators are completely or partially supported
   by the most known NoSQL databases (MongoDB, CouchDB, HBase,
   Cassandra, Hadoop) so the implementation of the new parameters seems
   to be practicable by servers working without the use of an RDBMS.

5.1.  Considerations about Paging Implementation

   The use of limit and offset operators represents the most common way
   to implement results pagination.  However, when offset has a high
   value, scrolling the result set could take some time.  In addition,
   offset pagination may return inconsistent pages when data are
   frequently updated (i.e. real-time data) but this is not the case of
   registration data.  An alternative approach to offset pagination is
   the keyset pagination, a.k.a. seek-method [SEEK] or cursor based
   pagination.  This method has been taken as the basis for the
   implementation of a cursor parameter [CURSOR] by some REST API
   providers (e.g.  [CURSOR-API1],[CURSOR-API2]).  The cursor parameter
   is an opaque URL-safe string representing a logical pointer to the
   first result of the next page (Figure 6).



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


 {
   "rdapConformance": [
     "rdap_level_0",
     "paging_level_0"
   ],
   ...
   "notices": [
     {
       "title": "Search query limits",
       "type": "result set truncated due to excessive load",
       "description": [
       "search results for domains are limited to 10"
       ]
     }
   ],
   "paging_metadata": {
     "totalCount": 73,
     "pageCount": 10,
     "links": [
       {
         "value": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com",
         "rel": "next",
         "href": "https://example.com/rdap/domains?name=*nr.com&limit=10
               &cursor=wJlCDLIl6KTWypN7T6vc6nWEmEYe99Hjf1XY1xmqV-M=",
         "title": "Result Pagination Link",
         "type": "application/rdap+json"
       }
     ]
   },
   "domainSearchResults": [
     ...
   ]
 }

   Figure 6: Example of a "paging_metadata" instance to implement keyset
                                pagination

   But keyset pagination raises some drawbacks with respect to offset
   pagination:

   o  it needs at least one key field;
   o  it does not allow to sort by any field and paginate the results
      because sorting has to be made on the key field;
   o  it does not allow to skip pages because they have to be scrolled
      in sequential order starting from the initial page;
   o  it makes very hard the navigation of the result set in both
      directions because all comparison and sort operations have to be
      reversed.



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   Furthermore, in the RDAP context, some additional considerations can
   be made:

   o  an RDAP object is a conceptual aggregation of information
      collected from more than one data structure (e.g. table) and this
      makes even harder for the developers the implementation of the
      seek-method that is already quite difficult.  In fact, for
      example, the entity object can gather information from different
      data structures (registrars, registrants, contacts, resellers, and
      so on), each one with its own key field mapping the RDAP entity
      handle;

   o  depending on the number of the page results as well as the number
      and the complexity of the properties of each RDAP object in the
      response, the time required by offset pagination to skip the
      previous pages could be much faster than the processing time
      needed to build the current page.  In fact, RDAP objects are
      usually formed by information belonging to multiple data
      structures and containing multivalued properties (e.g. arrays)
      and, therefore, data selection is a time consuming process.  This
      situation occurs even though the data selection process makes use
      of indexes;

   o  depending on the access levels defined by each RDAP operator, the
      increase of complexity and the decrease of flexibility of keyset
      pagination with respect to the offset pagination could be
      considered impractical.

   Finally, the keyset pagination is not fully compliant with the
   additional RDAP capabilities proposed by this document.  In fact, the
   presence of a possible cursor parameter does not seem to be
   consistent with both the sorting capability and the possibility to
   implement additional ready-made links besides the classic "next page"
   link.  But, while the provisioning of more paging links can be
   superfluous, dropping the sorting capability seems quite
   unreasonable.

   If pagination is implemented by using a cursor, both "offset" and
   "nextOffset" fields are not included in the "paging_metadata" data
   structure.

   FOR DISCUSSION: Should RDAP specification reports both offset and
   cursor parameters and let operators to implement pagination according
   to their needs, the user access levels, the submitted queries?







Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


6.  Implementation Status

   NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
   to publication as an RFC.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
   [RFC7942].  The description of implementations in this section is
   intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
   drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual
   implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
   Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
   presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not
   intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
   implementations or their features.  Readers are advised to note that
   other implementations may exist.

   According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

6.1.  IIT-CNR/Registro.it

      Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics
      of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it
      Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/
      Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries
      using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD.  The
      RDAP server does not implement any security policy because data
      returned by this server are only for experimental testing
      purposes.  The RDAP server implements both offset and cursor based
      pagination (the latter only when sortby and offset parameters are
      not present in the query string).
      Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research
      implementation.
      Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
      described in this specification.
      Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it

6.2.  Google Registry

      Responsible Organization: Google Registry
      Location: https://www.registry.google/rdap/




Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


      Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries
      for TLDs such as .GOOGLE, .HOW, .SOY, and .xn--q9jyb4c . The RDAP
      server implements cursor based pagination (the number of objects
      per page is fixed so the limit parameter is not available).  The
      link used to request the next page is included in the notice
      section of the response.
      Level of Maturity: Production.
      Coverage: This implementation includes the cursor parameter
      described in this specification.
      Contact Information: Brian Mountford, mountford@google.com

7.  IANA Considerations

   FOR DISCUSSION: An IANA-maintained registry could be used to document
   all of the properties that could be used as sort criteria.  Such a
   registry could also be used to identify the properties for RDAP query
   filtering capabilities.

7.1.  Registry of References to RDAP Properties

   Entries in this registry could contain the following:

   o  Object class name: the class name of the object the property
      belongs to (as defined in [RFC7483]);
   o  Property reference: the reference to the property;
   o  JSON Path: the JSON path of the property inside the object (as
      defined in [RFC8259]);
   o  Published specification: RFC number, bibliographical reference, or
      URL to a permanent and readily available specification;
   o  Contact: the names and email addresses of individuals to contact
      regarding this registry entry;
   o  Intended usage: brief reasons for this registry entry (as defined
      in [RFC5226]).

   In the following, an example of the entry about the reference "ipV4"
   is reported:

   o  Object class name: Nameserver
   o  Property reference: ipV4
   o  JSON Path: $.ipAddresses.v4[0]
   o  Published specification: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-loffredo-
      regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-04.txt
   o  Contact: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
   o  Intended usage: The entry is about the reference to the IPv4
      address within a nameserver object.






Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


8.  Security Considerations

   Security services for the operations specified in this document are
   described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481].

   Search query typically requires more server resources (such as
   memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to lookup
   query.  This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion and
   subsequent denial of service due to abuse.  This risk can be
   mitigated by either restricting search functionality and limiting the
   rate of search requests.  Servers can also reduce their load by
   truncating the results in the response.  However, this last security
   policy can result in a higher inefficiency if the RDAP server does
   not provide any functionality to return the truncated results.

   The new parameters presented in this document provide the RDAP
   operators with a way to implement a secure server without penalizing
   its efficiency.  The "count" parameter gives the user a measure to
   evaluate the query precision and, at the same time, return a
   significant information.  The "sortby" parameter allows the user to
   obtain the most relevant information at the beginning of the result
   set.  In both cases, the user doesn't need to submit further
   unnecessary search requests.  Finally, the "limit" and "offset"
   parameters enable the user to scroll the result set by submitting a
   sequence of sustainable queries according to the server limits.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Brian Mountford for his
   contribution to the development of this document.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [ISO.3166.1988]
              International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
              the representation of names of countries, 3rd edition",
              ISO Standard 3166, August 1988.

   [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>.







Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

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

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

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

   [RFC7481]  Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
              Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.

   [RFC7482]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
              Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.

   [RFC7483]  Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
              Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8288]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.




Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


10.2.  Informative References

   [CURSOR]   Nimesh, R., "Paginating Real-Time Data with Keyset
              Pagination", July 2014, <https://www.sitepoint.com/
              paginating-real-time-data-cursor-based-pagination/>.

   [CURSOR-API1]
              facebook.com, "facebook for developers - Using the Graph
              API", July 2017, <https://developers.facebook.com/docs/
              graph-api/using-graph-api>.

   [CURSOR-API2]
              twitter.com, "Pagination", 2017,
              <https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/ads/general/guides/
              pagination.html>.

   [MYSQL-COUNT]
              mysql.com, "MySQL 5.7 Reference Manual, Counting Rows",
              October 2015, <https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/
              counting-rows.html>.

   [MYSQL-LIMIT]
              mysql.com, "MySQL 5.7 Reference Manual, SELECT Syntax",
              October 2015,
              <https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/select.html>.

   [MYSQL-SORT]
              mysql.com, "MySQL 5.7 Reference Manual, Sorting Rows",
              October 2015, <https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/
              sorting-rows.html>.

   [OData-Part1]
              Pizzo, M., Handl, R., and M. Zurmuehl, "OData Version 4.0.
              Part 1: Protocol Plus Errata 03", June 2016,
              <http://docs.oasis-
              open.org/odata/odata/v4.0/errata03/os/complete/part1-
              protocol/
              odata-v4.0-errata03-os-part1-protocol-complete.pdf>.

   [ORACLE-COUNT]
              Oracle Corporation, "Database SQL Language Reference,
              COUNT", March 2016,
              <http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/COUNT.htm>.

   [ORACLE-LIMIT]
              Oracle Corporation, "Database SQL Language Reference,
              SELECT, Row limiting clause", March 2016,
              <http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/SELECT.htm>.



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   [ORACLE-ROW-NUMBER]
              Oracle Corporation, "Database SQL Language Reference,
              SELECT, ROW_NUMBER", March 2016,
              <http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/
              ROW_NUMBER.htm#SQLRF06100>.

   [ORACLE-ROWNUM]
              Oracle Corporation, "Database SQL Language Reference,
              SELECT, ROWNUM Pseudocolumn", March 2016,
              <http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/
              ROWNUM-Pseudocolumn.htm#SQLRF00255>.

   [ORACLE-SORT]
              Oracle Corporation, "Database SQL Language Reference,
              SELECT, Order by clause", March 2016,
              <http://docs.oracle.com/database/122/SQLRF/SELECT.htm>.

   [POSTGRES-COUNT]
              postgresql.org, "PostgresSQL, Aggregate Functions",
              September 2016,
              <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/
              functions-aggregate.html>.

   [POSTGRES-LIMIT]
              postgresql.org, "PostgresSQL, LIMIT and OFFSET", September
              2016, <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/
              queries-limit.html>.

   [POSTGRES-SORT]
              postgresql.org, "PostgresSQL, Sorting Rows", September
              2016, <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/
              queries-order.html>.

   [REST]     Fredrich, T., "RESTful Service Best Practices,
              Recommendations for Creating Web Services", April 2012,
              <http://www.restapitutorial.com/media/
              RESTful_Best_Practices-v1_1.pdf>.

   [RFC6901]  Bryan, P., Ed., Zyp, K., and M. Nottingham, Ed.,
              "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer", RFC 6901,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6901, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6901>.

   [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>.




Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   [SEEK]     EverSQL.com, "Faster Pagination in Mysql - Why Order By
              With Limit and Offset is Slow?", July 2017,
              <https://www.eversql.com/faster-pagination-in-mysql-why-
              order-by-with-limit-and-offset-is-slow/>.

   [W3C.CR-xpath-31-20161213]
              Robie, J., Dyck, M., and J. Spiegel, "XML Path Language
              (XPath) 3.1", World Wide Web Consortium CR CR-xpath-
              31-20161213, December 2016,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-xpath-31-20161213>.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   00:  Initial version.
   01:  Added the paragraph "Considerations about Paging Implementation"
      to "Implementation Considerations" section.  Added "Implementation
      Status" section.  Added acknowledgements.  Renamed the property
      reporting the paging links.
   02:  Corrected the value of "title" field in "paging_links" property.
      Updated references to RFC5988 (obsoleted by RFC 8288) and RFC7159
      (obsoleted by RFC 8259).  Revised some sentences.
   03:  Added the paragraph "Google Registry" to "Implementation Status"
      section.
   04:  Rearranged the information about pagination included in RDAP
      responses.  Added the section "Paging Metadata".  Replaced the
      wrong reference to RFC 5266 with the correct reference to RFC
      5226.

Authors' Addresses

   Mario Loffredo
   IIT-CNR/Registro.it
   Via Moruzzi,1
   Pisa  56124
   IT

   Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
   URI:   http://www.iit.cnr.it


   Maurizio Martinelli
   IIT-CNR/Registro.it
   Via Moruzzi,1
   Pisa  56124
   IT

   Email: maurizio.martinelli@iit.cnr.it
   URI:   http://www.iit.cnr.it



Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           RDAP Sorting and Paging               June 2018


   Scott Hollenbeck
   Verisign Labs
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA  20190
   USA

   Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
   URI:   https://www.verisignlabs.com/











































Loffredo, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018              [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/