| Internet-Draft | rdap-x | April 2025 |
| Newton & Singh | Expires 11 October 2025 | [Page] |
This document defines a new parameter for the RDAP media type that can be used to describe RDAP content with RDAP extensions. Additionally, this document describes the usage of this parameter with RDAP for the purposes of signalling RDAP extensions during content negotiation.¶
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 11 October 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 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 (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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
[RFC7480] defines the "application/rdap+json" media type to be used with RDAP. This document defines a new parameter for this media type when an RDAP extension needs to be described during HTTP content negotiation.¶
This parameter enables an RDAP client to signal to an RDAP server the list of RDAP extensions supported by that client. For example, an RDAP client that supports the "foo" extension may use this mechanism as a signal to an RDAP server, thus allowing the server to respond with data using the "foo" extension inside an RDAP response only when it can be assured the client can understand the extension.¶
By using this method, there is no need for every RDAP extension to define their own unique signaling mechanism. Additionally, this method is designed to be backwards-compatible with the deployed RDAP ecosystem (see Appendix B for further information).¶
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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
The RDAP media type, "application/rdap+json", may have an optional parameter named "extensions". This parameter is a whitespace-separated list of RDAP extensions as defined in the IANA RDAP Extensions registry.¶
Here is an example:¶
application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 fred"¶
[RFC7480] specifies the usage of "application/json", "application/rdap+json" or both with HTTP "accept" header. The "extensions" parameter may only be used with the "application/rdap+json" media type.¶
This is an example of the "accept" header using the RDAP media type with an "extensions" parameter:¶
accept: application/json;q=0.9,
application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 fred";q=1
¶
When a server is programmed to understand the "extensions" parameter, it MUST respond with the "extensions" parameter in the RDAP media type in the "content-type" header. By doing so, clients will be able to detect if the server recognizes the "extensions" parameter. [RFC7480] requires that only the "application/rdap+json" media type be used in the "content-type" header.¶
If both a client and a server support the "extensions" parameter, and the client requests an extension that is unimplemented by the server, the server MUST respond with only extensions implemented by the server. This behavior is backwards-compatible as RDAP clients must ignore unknown extensions as specified by [RFC9083]. Responding with an HTTP 406 Not Acceptable status code is NOT RECOMMENDED because an RDAP client could interpret this status code to mean that the server does not understand RDAP in its entirety.¶
Likewise, if a server is required to use an extension in a response that was not requested by the client, the server MUST respond as if the client had requested the extension. This behavior is backwards-compatible as RDAP clients must ignore unknown extensions as specified by [RFC9083]. Responding with an HTTP 406 Not Acceptable status code is NOT RECOMMENDED for the reason stated above.¶
When the "extensions" parameter is used in the RDAP media type in the "content-type" header, the values in the media type's "extensions" parameter MUST match the values in the "rdapConformance" array in the returned JSON.¶
Just as servers must not put extensions into the "rdapConformance" array for which they do not support, servers MUST NOT list extensions in the "extensions" parameter for which they do not support.¶
The contents of the "extensions" parameter mirrors the content of the "rdapConformance" array in server responses. This includes the identifier "rdap_level_0", which is not an extension identifier but an identifier for the base RDAP specifications. Servers MUST follow the same rules for placing "rdap_level_0" in the content of the "extensions" parameter and the "rdapConformance" array. Clients MUST interpret an "extensions" parameter without "rdap_level_0" or one of its successor identifiers (e.g. "rdap_level_1") in the same manner as the interpretation of the "rdapConformance" array without "rdap_level_0" or one of its successors.¶
Nothing in this specification sidesteps or obviates the HTTP content negotiation defined in [RFC9110] for RDAP.¶
Likewise, nothing in this specification sidesteps or obviates the HTTP caching mechanisms defined in [RFC9110]. Further advice on the "vary" header can be found in Appendix A.¶
Some RDAP extensions, such as [RFC9560], have other protocol elements (e.g. extension-specific query parameters) passed from the client to the server, and the presence of these protocol elements may be used by servers to determine a client's capability to handle the related RDAP extension(s). This specification does not require the usage of those extension identifiers in the "extensions" parameter, though clients SHOULD list the extension identifier in the "extensions" parameter when using other protocol elements of those extensions for better compatibility with servers recognizing the "extensions" parameter. Servers SHOULD NOT require the usage of extension identifiers in the "extensions" parameter when other extension protocol elements are used for backwards-compatibility purposes.¶
This document defines an RDAP "profile" extension using the identifier "rdapExtensions1". This RDAP extension defines no additional RDAP queries or response structures.¶
The purpose of this RDAP extension is to allow servers to signal support for the "extensions" parameter in "rdapConformance" arrays of responses to "/help" (aka "service discovery").¶
The following examples use the HTTP/1.1 message exchange syntax as seen in [RFC9110].¶
This example demonstrates the negotiation of the "application/rdap+json" media type as defined in [RFC7480] using an RDAP "/help" query. This example also demonstrates the negotiation in which a client does not support the "extensions" parameter but a server does support the "extensions" parameter.¶
Client Request:¶
GET /help HTTP/1.1 accept: application/rdap+json¶
Server Response:¶
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1"
{ "rdapConformance" : [ "rdap_level_0", "rdapExtensions1" ],
"notices" : [
{ "description" : [ "my content includes a trailing CRLF" ] } ] }
¶
In this example, both the client and server support the "extensions" parameter and a fictional extension of "foo".¶
Client Request:¶
GET /help HTTP/1.1 accept: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 foo"¶
Server Response:¶
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 foo"
{ "rdapConformance" : [ "rdap_level_0", "rdapExtensions1", "foo" ],
"notices" : [
{ "description" : [ "my content includes a trailing CRLF" ] } ] }
¶
In this example, only the client supports the "extensions" parameter, along with a fictional extension of "foo" by both.¶
Client Request:¶
GET /help HTTP/1.1 accept: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 foo"¶
Server Response:¶
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: application/rdap+json
{ "rdapConformance" : [ "rdap_level_0", "foo" ],
"notices" : [
{ "description" : [ "my content includes a trailing CRLF" ] } ] }
¶
In this example, both the client and server support the "extensions" parameter. The client supports the extensions "foo" and "bar" while the server only support "foo".¶
Client Request:¶
GET /help HTTP/1.1 accept: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 foo bar"¶
Server Response:¶
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 foo"
{ "rdapConformance" : [ "rdap_level_0", "rdapExtensions1", "foo" ],
"notices" : [
{ "description" : [ "my content includes a trailing CRLF" ] } ] }
¶
For scenarios where the "versioning" extension, as defined by [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning], is used, the extension identifiers in the client request may not be exact or case-insensitive matches for the extension identifiers in the server response (unlike scenarios where the "versioning" extension is not used). That is, the extension identifiers used by the client have appended versioning information, but the extension identifiers returned by the server do not have appended versioning information (such information is in the "versioning" JSON).¶
Client Request:¶
GET /domain/example.com HTTP/1.1 accept: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 versioning_0_2"¶
Server Response:¶
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 versioning"
{ "rdapConformance" : [ "rdap_level_0", "rdapExtensions1", "versioning" ],
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example.com",
"versioning": [ {
"extension": "versioning",
"type": "semantic",
"version": "versioning_0_2" } ]
}
¶
Servers might also use the "versioning" extension to describe meta-data about supported extensions even if the servers do not explicitly support extension versioning.¶
Section 4.2 of [RFC9083] defines a link structure used in RDAP.¶
{
"value": "https://example.com/context_uri",
"rel": "self",
"href": "https://example.com/target_uri",
"hreflang": [ "en", "ch" ],
"title": "title",
"media": "screen",
"type": "application/json"
}
¶
The type attribute signals to a client the expected media type of the resource referenced in the href attribute, and some clients use this information to determine if the URI in the href attribute should be de-referenced.¶
Usage of the "extensions" parameter in the media type of the "type" attribute is NOT RECOMMENDED as clients are under obligation to use the "extensions" parameter as described in Section 3. That is, clients will populate the contents of the "extensions" parameter according to Section 3 regardless of its usage in the link.¶
As stated in Section 3, this specification does not override the protocol elements of RDAP security extensions, such as [RFC9560], nor does it override the protocol elements of other security features of HTTP.¶
This specification does contrast with solutions using query parameters in that those solutions require servers to blindly copy query parameters into redirect URLs in situations where such copying could cause harm, such as copying an API key intended for one server into the redirect URL of another server.¶
The IETF requests the IANA to register the following extension in the RDAP Extensions Registry at [RDAP-EXTENSIONS]:¶
Extension identifier: rdapExtensions1 Registry operator: ALL Published specification: [RFC Reference Once Published] Person & email address to contact for further information: The Internet Engineering Steering Group <[email protected]> Intended usage: COMMON¶
Pawel Kowalik provided extensive review of this document and conducted a study that forms the basis of re-using the existing RDAP media type. Mario Loffredo and James Mitchell have provided ideas and feedbacks that have contributed to the content of this document. Murray Kucherawy and Alexey Melnikov provided guidance on the use of media types and media type parameters.¶
Server implementers may want to consider using the "vary" header depending on the caching behavior desired of shared caches (i.e. middleboxes, not client caches).¶
Consider the following scenario where user Bob and user Alice send queries to the same RDAP server that is routed through a middlebox network element implementing a shared HTTP cache.¶
User Bob sends a query for the domain "example.com"
(http://regy.example/domain/example.com) without the "extensions" parameter. The "accept" header sent
for Bob's query would be accept: application/rdap+json or accept: application/json.¶
User Alice later sends a query for the same domain, however her client uses the "extensions" parameter. The "accept"
header sent for Alice's query might be accept: application/rdap+json;extensions="rdap_level_0 rdapExtensions1 foo".¶
If no "vary" header is set in the response for these queries, the shared cache will compare only the URL of the query when processing cache items and therefore user Bob and user Alice would receive the same answer. In other words, since both queried "http://regy.example/domain/example.com" the shared cache would return the answer of the first query to the second query and all other subsequent queries until the item expired out of the cache.¶
If server implementers do not desire this behavior and would signal that caches consider each query separately, servers should also return a "vary: accept" header to inform the cache that the "accept" header should also be considered when processing cache items. Server implementers should also consult [RFC9110] regarding caching and other uses of the "vary" header.¶
Earliest versions of this document specified a new media type because the authors believed the addition of new parameter on the existing RDAP media type may be backwards-incompatible with many RDAP servers. However, a study conducted by Pawel Kowalik concluded that 99.65% of RDAP servers are compatible with a new parameter on the existing RDAP media type.¶
Additionally, [RFC2045] requires that the server ignore unknown parameters.¶
Another design approach to communicating RDAP extensions from the client to the server would be the use of URI query parameters:¶
https://rdap.example/domain/foo.example?extensions=fizzbuzz¶
However, there are a few problems with using query parameters for this scenario. Some of these problems are specific to RDAP and are also documented in [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-extensions]. The following sections also describe the problems.¶
Consider two RDAP users, Alice and Bob. Alice has an RDAP client that supports the extension "fizzbuzz", and Bob has an RDAP client that does not support this extension.¶
Now consider the scenario where Alice copies and pastes the RDAP URL from above into an email and sends it to Bob. When Bob uses that URL with his RDAP client, it will be communicating to the server that the extension "fizzbuzz" is understood by Bob's client when it is not.¶
In this scenario, Bob's client will be unable to render the RDAP extension regardless of the usage or not of the query parameter. However, if the server is using the query parameter for secondary purposes, such as gathering metrics and statistics, then the capabilities of Bob's client will have been incorrectly signalled to the server.¶
The RDAP ecosystem uses redirects in many situations. [RFC7480] discusses "aggregators", which are RDAP servers used to help clients find authoritative RDAP servers using the RDAP bootstrap registries. Redirects are also heavily used by the RIRs when IP addresses or autonomous system numbers are transferred from one RIR to another.¶
Within HTTP, URI query parameters are not explicitly preserved during a redirect (probably due to architecture considerations, see the section below). Specific to RDAP, [RFC7480] instructs RDAP servers to ignore unknown query parameters and instructs clients not to transform the URL of a redirect.¶
Therefore, query parameters denoting RDAP extensions should not survive redirects in RDAP. This can be readily observed in currently deployed RDAP servers:¶
curl -v https://rdap-bootstrap.arin.net/bootstrap/autnum/2830?extension=fizzbuzz¶
To further demonstrate that query parameters do not automatically survive redirects but that media types do, consider the code found here. This code consists of a simple client and a simple server. The client sets both a new media type and query parameters. The servers listen on two ports, redirecting the client from a URL on the first port to a URL on the second port.¶
Here is the output of the client. It shows that the query parameters are not automatically preserved but that the media type is automatically preserved.¶
2024-01-05T11:15:34.380989Z INFO client: sending reqwest to http://127.0.0.1:3000/ex1/domain/foo.example?foo&bar
2024-01-05T11:15:34.431386Z INFO client: returned content type: "application/rdap+json;extensions=\"foo bar\""
2024-01-05T11:15:34.431413Z INFO client: status code is 418 I'm a teapot
2024-01-05T11:15:34.431476Z INFO client: response is {"errorCode":418,"title": "Your Beverage Choice is Not Available"}
¶
Here is the output of the server. It shows that the client, upon redirect, automatically sends the media type but does not automatically preserve the query parameters.¶
2024-01-05T11:15:31.071936Z INFO servers: starting server on port 3000 2024-01-05T11:15:31.071961Z INFO servers: starting server on port 4000 2024-01-05T11:15:34.429595Z INFO servers: [redirecting server] Serving request from 127.0.0.1:60260 2024-01-05T11:15:34.429648Z INFO servers: [redirecting server] received query parameters: 'bar', 'foo' 2024-01-05T11:15:34.429682Z INFO servers: [redirecting server] client signaled RDAP extension 'foo' 2024-01-05T11:15:34.429693Z INFO servers: [redirecting server] client signaled RDAP extension 'bar' 2024-01-05T11:15:34.429704Z INFO servers: [redirecting server] redirecting to http://127.0.0.1:4000/ex2/domain/foo.example 2024-01-05T11:15:34.430940Z INFO servers: [authoritative server] Serving request from 127.0.0.1:40840 2024-01-05T11:15:34.430967Z INFO servers: [authoritative server] received query parameters: 2024-01-05T11:15:34.430983Z INFO servers: [authoritative server] client signaled RDAP extension 'foo' 2024-01-05T11:15:34.430989Z INFO servers: [authoritative server] client signaled RDAP extension 'bar' 2024-01-05T11:15:34.430995Z INFO servers: [authoritative server] responding with an unuseful error¶
Preservation of query parameters is not a guaranteed feature of HTTP client and server libraries, whereas preservation of media types is much more likely.¶
It is common in the RDAP ecosystem to link from one RDAP resource to another. These are typically conveyed in the link structure defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC9083] and use the "application/rdap+json" media type. One common usage is to link to a domain registration in a domain registrar from a domain registration in a domain registry.¶
{
"value" : "https://regy.example/domain/foo.example",
"rel" : "related",
"href" : "https://regr.example/domain/foo.example",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
¶
Usage of the "extensions" parameter does not require clients to conduct further processing of these referrals, whereas a query parameter approach would require clients to process and de-conflict any other query parameters if present.¶
As noted in [RFC3986], URI query parameters are meant to be part of the identity of the resource being identified by a URI and pointed to by the location of a URL. RDAP extensions change the portions of JSON returned by the server but are not intended to change the resource being identified. That is, a domain registration is the same domain registration regardless of whether the postal address in that domain registration is communicated via JCard or a new RDAP extension for JSContact.¶
Changing how the content of a resource is conveyed is called content negotiation and is discussed in detail in [RFC9110] using media types.¶
Readers should note that protocol design is not a "priestly affair" in which architectural violations are strictly forbidden. Every design decision is a trade-off. However, following the architecture of an ecosystem generally makes re-use of software and systems easier, and often eases the adoption of newer features in the future. When given the choice between two designs, the design that does not violate architecture should be preferred when all other considerations are equal.¶