1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hollenbeck
Request for Comments: 8521 Verisign Labs
BCP: 221 A. Newton
Updates: <a href="./rfc7484">7484</a> ARIN
Category: Best Current Practice November 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721
<span class="h1">Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging</span>
Abstract
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method that
can be used to identify the authoritative server for processing
domain name, IP address, and autonomous system number queries. The
method does not describe how to identify the authoritative server for
processing other RDAP query types, such as entity queries. This
limitation exists because the identifiers associated with these query
types are typically unstructured. This document updates <a href="./rfc7484">RFC 7484</a> by
describing an operational practice that can be used to add structure
to RDAP identifiers and that makes it possible to identify the
authoritative server for additional RDAP queries.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 7841</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8521">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8521</a>.
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Object Naming Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) includes a method
[<a href="./rfc7484" title=""Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service"">RFC7484</a>] that can be used to identify the authoritative server for
processing domain name, IP address, and Autonomous System Number
(ASN) queries. This method works because each of these data elements
is structured in a way that facilitates automated parsing of the
element and association of the data element with a particular RDAP
service provider. For example, domain names include labels (such as
"com", "net", and "org") that are associated with specific service
providers.
As noted in <a href="./rfc7484#section-9">Section 9 of RFC 7484</a> [<a href="./rfc7484" title=""Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service"">RFC7484</a>], the method does not
describe how to identify the authoritative server for processing
entity queries, name server queries, help queries, or queries using
certain search patterns. This limitation exists because the
identifiers bound to these queries are typically not structured in a
way that makes it easy to associate an identifier with a specific
service provider. This document describes an operational practice
that can be used to add structure to RDAP identifiers and makes it
possible to identify the authoritative server for additional RDAP
queries.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP</a>
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title=""Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Object Naming Practice</span>
Tagging object identifiers with a service provider tag makes it
possible to identify the authoritative server for processing an RDAP
query using the method described in <a href="./rfc7484">RFC 7484</a> [<a href="./rfc7484" title=""Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service"">RFC7484</a>]. A service
provider tag is constructed by prepending the Unicode HYPHEN-MINUS
character "-" (U+002D, described as an "unreserved" character in <a href="./rfc3986">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3986">3986</a> [<a href="./rfc3986" title=""Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax"">RFC3986</a>]) to an IANA-registered value that represents the
service provider. For example, a tag for a service provider
identified by the string value "ARIN" is represented as "-ARIN".
In combination with the rdapConformance attribute described in
<a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>, service provider tags are concatenated to the end of RDAP
query object identifiers to unambiguously identify the authoritative
server for processing an RDAP query. Building on the example from
<a href="./rfc7482#section-3.1.5">Section 3.1.5 of RFC 7482</a> [<a href="./rfc7482" title=""Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format"">RFC7482</a>], an RDAP entity handle can be
constructed to allow an RDAP client to bootstrap an entity query.
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
The following identifier is used to find information for the entity
associated with handle "XXXX" at service provider "ARIN":
XXXX-ARIN
Clients that wish to bootstrap an entity query can parse this
identifier into distinct handle and service provider identifier
elements. Handles can themselves contain HYPHEN-MINUS characters;
the service provider identifier is found following the last HYPHEN-
MINUS character in the tagged identifier. The service provider
identifier is used to retrieve a base RDAP URL from an IANA registry.
The base URL and entity handle are then used to form a complete RDAP
query path segment. For example, if the base RDAP URL
"https://example.com/rdap/" is associated with service provider
"YYYY" in an IANA registry, an RDAP client will parse a tagged entity
identifier "XXXX-YYYY" into distinct handle ("XXXX") and service
provider ("YYYY") identifiers. The service provider identifier
"YYYY" is used to query an IANA registry to retrieve the base RDAP
URL "https://example.com/rdap/". The RDAP query URL is formed using
the base RDAP URL and entity path segment described in <a href="./rfc7482#section-3.1.5">Section 3.1.5
of RFC 7482</a> [<a href="./rfc7482" title=""Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format"">RFC7482</a>] and using "XXXX-YYY" as the value of the handle
identifier. The complete RDAP query URL becomes
"https://example.com/rdap/entity/XXXX-YYYY".
Implementation of this practice requires tagging of unstructured
potential query identifiers in RDAP responses. Consider these elided
examples ("..." is used to note elided response objects) from
<a href="./rfc7483#section-5.3">Section 5.3 of RFC 7483</a> [<a href="./rfc7483" title=""JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"">RFC7483</a>] in which the handle identifiers
have been tagged with service provider tags "RIR", "DNR", and "ABC",
respectively:
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"nameservers" :
[
...
],
"secureDNS":
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"vcardArray":
[
...
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"network" :
{
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
"ipVersion" : "v4",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country" : "AU",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
"status" : [ "active" ]
}
}
Figure 1
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX-YYY-DNR",
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "foo.example",
"variants" :
[
...
],
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
"publicIds":
[
...
],
"nameservers" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX-DNR",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
...
},
"remarks" :
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
...
},
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
...
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX-ABC",
"vcardArray":
[
...
],
"status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
...
],
"links" :
[
...
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
],
"events" :
[
...
]
}
]
}
Figure 2
As described in <a href="./rfc7483#section-5">Section 5 of RFC 7483</a> [<a href="./rfc7483" title=""JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"">RFC7483</a>], RDAP responses can
contain "self" links. Service provider tags and self references
SHOULD be consistent. If they are inconsistent, the service provider
tag is processed with higher priority when using these values to
identify a service provider.
There is a risk of unpredictable processing behavior if the HYPHEN-
MINUS character is used for naturally occurring, non-separator
purposes in an entity handle. This could lead to a client mistakenly
assuming that a HYPHEN-MINUS character represents a separator and
that the text that follows HYPHEN-MINUS is a service provider
identifier. A client that queries the IANA registry for what they
assume is a valid service provider will likely receive an unexpected,
invalid result. As a consequence, use of the HYPHEN-MINUS character
as a service provider tag separator MUST be noted by adding an
rdapConformance value to query responses as described in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>.
The HYPHEN-MINUS character was chosen as a separator for two reasons:
1) it is a familiar separator character in operational use, and 2) it
avoids collision with URI-reserved characters. The list of
unreserved characters specified in <a href="./rfc3986#section-2.3">Section 2.3 of RFC 3986</a> [<a href="./rfc3986" title=""Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax"">RFC3986</a>]
provided multiple options for consideration:
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
ALPHA and DIGIT characters were excluded because they are commonly
used in entity handles for non-separator purposes. HYPHEN-MINUS is
commonly used as a separator, and recognition of this practice will
reduce implementation requirements and operational risk. The
remaining characters were excluded because they are not broadly used
as separators in entity handles.
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider Object Tags</span>
The bootstrap service registry for the RDAP service provider space is
represented using the structure specified in <a href="./rfc7484#section-3">Section 3 of RFC 7484</a>
[<a href="./rfc7484" title=""Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service"">RFC7484</a>]. The JSON output of this registry contains contact
information for the registered service provider identifiers,
alphanumeric identifiers that identify RDAP service providers, and
base RDAP service URLs as shown in this example.
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "RDAP bootstrap file for service provider object tags",
"services": [
[
["contact@example.com"],
["YYYY"],
[
"https://example.com/rdap/"
]
],
[
["contact@example.org"],
["ZZ54"],
[
"http://rdap.example.org/"
]
],
[
["contact@example.net"],
["1754"],
[
"https://example.net/rdap/",
"http://example.net/rdap/"
]
]
]
}
Figure 3
Alphanumeric service provider identifiers conform to the suffix
portion ("\w{1,8}") of the "roidType" syntax specified in <a href="./rfc5730#section-4.2">Section 4.2
of RFC 5730</a> [<a href="./rfc5730" title=""Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"">RFC5730</a>].
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Registration Procedure</span>
The service provider registry is populated using the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in <a href="./rfc8126">RFC 8126</a> [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>]. Provider
identifier values can be derived and assigned by IANA on request.
Registration requests include an email address to be associated with
the registered service provider identifier, the requested service
provider identifier (or an indication that IANA should assign an
identifier), and one or more base RDAP URLs to be associated with the
service provider identifier.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. RDAP Conformance</span>
RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST
indicate conformance with this specification by including an
rdapConformance [<a href="./rfc7483" title=""JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"">RFC7483</a>] value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0". The
information needed to register this value in the "RDAP Extensions"
registry is described in <a href="#section-5.2">Section 5.2</a>.
The following is an example rdapConformance structure with the
extension specified.
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0",
"rdap_objectTag_level_0"
]
Figure 4
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA has created the RDAP "Bootstrap Service Registry for Provider
Object Tags" listed below and made it available as a JSON object.
The contents of this registry are described in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>; the formal
syntax is specified in <a href="./rfc7484#section-10">Section 10 of RFC 7484</a> [<a href="./rfc7484" title=""Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service"">RFC7484</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Bootstrap Service Registry Structure</span>
Entries in this registry contain the following information:
o an email address that identifies a contact associated with the
registered RDAP service provider value.
o an alphanumeric value that identifies the RDAP service provider
being registered.
o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration. The URLs are expected to supply the same data, but
they can differ in scheme or other components as required by the
service operator.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. RDAP Extensions Registry</span>
IANA has registered the following value in the "RDAP Extensions"
registry:
Extension identifier: rdap_objectTag
Registry operator: Any
Published specification: This document
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: This extension describes a best practice for
structuring entity identifiers to enable query bootstrapping.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This practice uses IANA as a well-known, centrally trusted authority
to allow users to get RDAP data from an authoritative source, which
reduces the risk of sending queries to non-authoritative sources and
divulging query information to unintended parties. Using TLS 1.2
[<a href="./rfc5246" title=""The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2"">RFC5246</a>] or TLS 1.3 [<a href="./rfc8446" title=""The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3"">RFC8446</a>], which obsoletes TLS 1.2, to protect
the connection to IANA allows the server to authenticate itself as
being operated by IANA and provides integrity protection for the
resulting referral information, as well as provides privacy
protection via data confidentiality. The subsequent RDAP connection
is performed as usual and retains the same security properties of the
RDAP protocols themselves as described in <a href="./rfc7481">RFC 7481</a> [<a href="./rfc7481" title=""Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)"">RFC7481</a>].
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5730">RFC5730</a>] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, <a href="./rfc5730">RFC 5730</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7484">RFC7484</a>] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
(RDAP) Service", <a href="./rfc7484">RFC 7484</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7484, March
2015, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8126">RFC8126</a>] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
<a href="./rfc8126">RFC 8126</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3986">RFC3986</a>] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
<a href="./rfc3986">RFC 3986</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5246">RFC5246</a>] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", <a href="./rfc5246">RFC 5246</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7481">RFC7481</a>] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", <a href="./rfc7481">RFC 7481</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7482">RFC7482</a>] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", <a href="./rfc7482">RFC 7482</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482</a>>.
<span class="grey">Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8521">RFC 8521</a> RDAP Object Tagging November 2018</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC7483">RFC7483</a>] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", <a href="./rfc7483">RFC 7483</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8446">RFC8446</a>] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", <a href="./rfc8446">RFC 8446</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446</a>>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to the development of this document: Tom
Harrison, Patrick Mevzek, and Marcos Sanz. In addition, the authors
would like to recognize the Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
operators (AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE) that have been
implementing and using the practice of tagging handle identifiers for
several years. Their experience provided significant inspiration for
the development of this document.
Authors' Addresses
Scott Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com
URI: <a href="http://www.verisignlabs.com/">http://www.verisignlabs.com/</a>
Andrew Lee Newton
American Registry for Internet Numbers
PO Box 232290
Centreville, VA 20120
United States of America
Email: andy@arin.net
URI: <a href="http://www.arin.net">http://www.arin.net</a>
Hollenbeck & Newton Best Current Practice [Page 13]
</pre>
|
