RFC 9083
JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
RFC 9083 Part 1 of 12 💖
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🎀 Author: S. Hollenbeck, from Verisign Labs 🌸 and A. Newton, from AWS 💅
Okay bestie, this one is the RFC that defines the JSON responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) ✨. It's Standards Track 👑 and it's marked as STD: 95, which means it's an official Internet Standard 🔥. It was published in June 2021 🦋 and it has an ISSN: 2070-1721 🧚.
The big news: this one obsoletes RFC 7483 💀, so it replaces that older version. Nothing is updated here, just replaced 🫶.
JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) 🌈
Abstract ✨
Okay so the abstract says this document describes JSON data structures for registration info kept by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) 🌍 and Domain Name Registries (DNRs) 🏷️. These structures get used to build RDAP query responses 💌. And yep, it obsoletes RFC 7483, periodt 💅.
Status of This Memo 🧁
This is an Internet Standards Track document 🔥.
It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🌸, and it totally represents the consensus of the IETF community 🫶. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) 👑. If you want more info on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 7841 ✨.
Info about the current status, any errata, and how to give feedback lives at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083 🦋.
Copyright Notice 💜
Copyright (c) 2021 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) as they stand on the publication date 📜. Please read these carefully, bestie, because they spell out your rights and restrictions 🙈. Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come with no warranty, as the Simplified BSD License describes 💅.
Table of Contents 🧚
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology and Definitions
1.2. Data Model
2. Use of JSON
2.1. Naming
3. Common Data Types
4. Common Data Structures
4.1. RDAP Conformance
4.2. Links
4.3. Notices and Remarks
4.4. Language Identifier
4.5. Events
4.6. Status
4.7. Port 43 WHOIS Server
4.8. Public IDs
4.9. Object Class Name
4.10. An Example
5. Object Classes
5.1. The Entity Object Class
5.2. The Nameserver Object Class
5.3. The Domain Object Class
5.4. The IP Network Object Class
5.5. The Autonomous System Number Object Class
6. Error Response Body
7. Responding to Help Queries
8. Responding To Searches
9. Indicating Truncated Responses
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. RDAP JSON Media Type Registration
10.2. JSON Values Registry
10.2.1. Notice and Remark Types
10.2.2. Status
10.2.3. Event Actions
10.2.4. Roles
10.2.5. Variant Relations
11. Security Considerations
12. Internationalization Considerations
12.1. Character Encoding
12.2. URIs and IRIs
12.3. Language Tags
12.4. Internationalized Domain Names
13. Privacy Considerations
14. References
14.1. Normative References
14.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Suggested Data Modeling with the Entity Object Class
A.1. Registrants and Contacts
A.2. Registrars
Appendix B. Modeling Events
Appendix C. Structured vs. Unstructured Addresses
Appendix D. Secure DNS
Appendix E. Motivations for Using JSON
Appendix F. Changes from RFC 7483
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction 🌷
1.1. Terminology and Definitions 📚
Okay so here's the key word stuff 🔑. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" mean what BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] says they mean, but only when they're written in all capitals, just like this 💜.
Here's the terminology list ✨:
DNR: Domain Name Registry or Domain Name Registrar 🏷️LDH: letters, digits, hyphen 🔤member: data found within an object, as defined by JSON [RFC8259] 🧩object: a data structure, as defined by JSON [RFC8259] 🍓object class: the definition of members that may be found in the JSON objects described in this document 🦋object instance: an instantiation or specific instance of an object class 🌸RDAP: Registration Data Access Protocol 💌RIR: Regional Internet Registry 🌍
1.2. Data Model 🧠
The data model for JSON responses is specified in five sections 💖:
- simple data types conveyed in JSON primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, and null) 🫧
- data structures specified as JSON arrays or objects that are used repeatedly when building up larger objects 🧱
- object classes representing structured data corresponding to a lookup of a single object 🔍
- arrays of objects representing structured data corresponding to a search for multiple objects 🗂️
- the response to an error 🙈
The object classes represent responses for two major categories of data 🌈. RIRs return registration data for IP addresses, reverse DNS names, and Autonomous System numbers 🌐, and DNRs return registration data for forward DNS names 🌸. The following object classes are returned by both RIRs and DNRs ✨:
- domains
- nameservers
- entities
The info served by both RIRs and DNRs for these object classes overlaps a LOT, so this document gives them as one unified model for both kinds of service 🫶.
On top of those, RIRs also serve these object classes 🦋:
- IP networks
- Autonomous System numbers
Object classes defined in this document are a minimal set of what a compliant client/server needs to understand to work properly 💅. Some deployments might want extra object classes for their own needs, so Section 2.1 of this document defines a way to extend the JSON objects described here 🧚.
Positive responses come in two forms 🎀. A lookup of a single object gives back a JSON object, which is the subject of the lookup 💖. A search for multiple objects gives back a JSON object containing an array of JSON objects, which are the subjects of the search 🗂️. In both cases, other data structures live inside the topmost JSON object 🌷.
2. Use of JSON 🧃
2.1. Naming 🏷️
Clients of these JSON responses SHOULD ignore unrecognized JSON members in responses 🙈. Servers can insert members into JSON responses that aren't specified here, and that is not an error in the response 💅. Servers that insert such unspecified members SHOULD give the member names a prefix made of a short identifier, then an underscore, then a meaningful name ✨. These short identifiers help software implementers figure out which specification a JSON member comes from, and if you skip one, an implementer might think the server is wrongly using a name from this spec 😭. This allowance does NOT apply to jCard [RFC7095] objects 🚫. Hmm, wait, let me say it properly: this allowance does not apply to jCard [RFC7095] objects 🦋. The full JSON name (prefix, underscore, and meaningful name) SHOULD follow the character and name limits of the prefix registry described in [RFC7480] 🌈. Skipping those limits could mean slower adoption, because they've been seen to help some client programming models 🧁.
Here's a JSON response with members that are all specified in this document 📦:
{
"handle" : "ABC123",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
]
}Figure 1 💜
If The Registry of the Moon wants to express info not found in this specification, it might pick "lunarNIC" as its identifying prefix 🌙 and insert, for example, the member named "lunarNIC_beforeOneSmallStep" to signify registrations made before the first moon landing 🚀, plus the member named "lunarNIC_harshMistressNotes" that holds other descriptive text 🌟.
Here's a JSON response with names, some of which clients without knowledge of their meaning SHOULD ignore 🧚:
{
"handle" : "ABC123",
"lunarNIC_beforeOneSmallStep" : "TRUE THAT!",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"lunarNIC_harshMistressNotes" :
[
"In space,",
"nobody can hear you scream."
]
}Figure 2 🌌
Inserting unrecognized members that clients ignore may also be used for future revisions of this specification 🔮.
Clients processing JSON responses need to be ready for members holding registration data specified in this document to be absent from a response 🫣. In other words, servers are free to leave out unrequired/optional JSON members containing registration data, based on their own policies 🎀.
Finally, all JSON names specified in this document are case sensitive 🔠. Both servers and clients MUST transmit and process them using the specified character case 💅 ✨.
Part 1 of 12 done, bestie! 🧚 Keep the vibes going for part 2 💖.
3. Common Data Types ✨
okay so JSON [RFC8259] gives us a number, a character string, a boolean, an array, an object, and null 💖 this section is the decoder ring for the common string types we keep using in this doc 🔍
- handle: DNRs and RIRs have registry-unique identifiers that may be used to specifically reference an object instance 🎀 the meaning here is a registry-unique reference to the closest enclosing object where the value is found 🦋 names like "registryId", "roid", "nic-handle", and "registrationNo" are basically synonyms for this type 💅 in this doc we just say "handle" 💜 how clients show it to users is out of scope 🙈 it's a plain character string ✨
- IPv4 addresses: we write these in dotted-decimal notation 🌸 for example, "192.0.2.0" 🧚
- IPv6 addresses: these follow the forms outlined in [RFC5952] 🌈 for example, "2001:db8::1:0:0:1" ✨
- country codes: when we need to name a geopolitical nation or country, we use the alpha-2 (two-character) code from [ISO.3166.2020] 🌍 alpha-2 is the pick because it's freely available, and the alpha-3 and numeric-3 standards aren't 💀
- LDH names: textual DNS names where all the labels are "letters, digits, hyphen" labels as described by [RFC5890] 🍓 trailing periods are optional 🫶
- Unicode names: textual DNS names where one or more labels are U-labels as described by [RFC5890] 🌸 trailing periods are optional too 💅
- dates and times: the syntax for these is defined in [RFC3339] ⭐
- URIs: the syntax for a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is defined by [RFC3986] 🔗
Contact info is defined with jCards as described in [RFC7095] 💜 the "fn" member is required and MUST NOT be null according to [RFC6350] 🙅♀️ an empty "fn" member MAY be used when the contact name doesn't exist or has been redacted 🫣
4. Common Data Structures 🎀
this section is where we define the common data structures that show up in responses and object classes 💅
4.1. RDAP Conformance
the "rdapConformance" data structure is an array of strings 🌈 each one is a hint about the specifications used to build the response ✨ this structure MUST appear in the topmost JSON object of a response and MUST NOT appear anywhere else 😭 a response to a "help" request will list identifiers for all the specifications the server supports 🔥 a response to any other request only lists the specs actually used to build it 🎯 the set of identifiers returned MAY vary depending on the client's authorization level 🔐
example rdapConformance data structure:
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
]Figure 3
the string literal "rdap_level_0" means you're conforming to this specification 💖 when custom JSON values get inserted into responses, conformance to those custom specs MUST be indicated by including a unique string literal value registered in the IANA RDAP Extensions registry specified in [RFC7480] 🧚 for example, if the fictional Registry of the Moon wants to show that its JSON responses conform to its registered extensions, the string might be "lunarNIC_level_0" 🌙 these registered values help software implementers identify specs, and skipping them could slow down adoption of extensions 🐢
example rdapConformance structure with custom extensions noted:
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0",
"lunarNIC_level_0"
]Figure 4
4.2. Links
the "links" array shows up in data structures to point at other resources on the Internet 🔗 how these links relate to each other is defined by the IANA registry described in [RFC8288] 🦋
here's what a link structure looks like:
{
"value" : "https://example.com/context_uri",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.com/target_uri",
"hreflang" : [ "en", "ch" ],
"title" : "title",
"media" : "screen",
"type" : "application/json"
}Figure 5
the JSON names and values of "rel", "href", "hreflang", "title", "media", and "type" match up with the values in Section 3 of [RFC8288] 💅 the "value" is the context URI as described by [RFC8288] ✨ the "value", "rel", and "href" values MUST be specified 🙌 all the other JSON values are OPTIONAL 🫶 a "related" link relation MUST NOT include an "href" URI that's the same as the "self" link relation's "href" URI, so we don't end up in infinite client processing loops 🌀😭 Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) returned in URIs SHOULD be consistently returned in LDH name format so clients can process them according to their capabilities 🧠
here's the "links" array as it might show up in an object class:
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "up",
"href" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
]Figure 6
4.3. Notices and Remarks
"notices" and "remarks" are built the same way 🎀 notices hold info about the service providing RDAP data and/or the whole response 🌍 remarks hold info about the object class that contains them (see Section 5 for object classes) 💬
both are arrays of objects 🧁 each object has a "title" string for its title, a "type" string naming a registered type of remark or notice (see Section 10.2.1) 🏷️, an array of strings called "description" for any descriptive text, and a "links" array as described in Section 4.2 🔗 the "description" array MUST be included 📝 all the other JSON values are OPTIONAL 🌸
example notices data structure:
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Terms of Use",
"description" :
[
"Service subject to The Registry of the Moon's TOS.",
"Copyright (c) 2020 LunarNIC"
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/terms_of_use.html"
}
]
}
]Figure 7
clients are the ones who decide line breaks, spacing, and display stuff for sentences in the "description" array 🖥️ each string in that array is one complete chunk of human-readable text, which tells clients where the semantic breaks are ✂️
example remarks data structure:
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
]Figure 8
objects in the "remarks" array can also have a "links" array 🔗
the "title" and "description" fields are mainly for humans 🧑💻 but the "type" string holds a well-known value registered with IANA (see Section 10.2.1) so software can work with it 🤖
another example remarks data structure:
"remarks" :
[
{
"type" : "object truncated due to authorization",
"description" :
[
"Some registration data may not have been given.",
"Use proper authorization credentials to see all of it."
]
}
]Figure 9
"remarks" will show up in lots of object classes in a response, but "notices" only shows up in the topmost object of a response 👑
4.4. Language Identifier
this data structure is just one name/value pair 🗣️ the name is "lang" and the value is a string holding a language identifier as described in [RFC5646] 🌏
"lang" : "mn-Cyrl-MN"Figure 10
the "lang" attribute from this section MAY appear anywhere in an object class or data structure, except in jCard objects 🙈 vCard does something similar with the LANGUAGE property parameter (see Section 5.1 of RFC 6350 [RFC6350]) 💜
4.5. Events
this data structure represents events that have happened to an instance of an object class (see Section 5 for object classes) 📅
example of an "events" array:
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventActor" : "SOMEID-LUNARNIC",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventActor" : "OTHERID-LUNARNIC",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]Figure 11
the "events" array is made of objects, each with these members 🧩
- "eventAction" -- a REQUIRED string giving the reason for the event 🎬
- "eventActor" -- an OPTIONAL identifier for the actor responsible for the event 🎭
- "eventDate" -- a REQUIRED string with the time and date the event happened 🕰️
- "links" -- OPTIONAL; see Section 4.2 🔗
events can be future dated 🔮 one use case for future dating is marking when an object expires from a registry ⏳
the "links" array in this structure is for references to the event actor 🫂 to reference an RDAP entity, use a "rel" of "related" and a "type" of "application/rdap+json" in the link 💌
see Section 10.2.3 for a list of "eventAction" values 📋 and see Appendix B for the different ways events can be modeled 🧠
4.6. Status
this data structure, named "status", is an array of strings showing the state of a registered object (see Section 10.2.2 for a list of values) 🚦
4.7. Port 43 WHOIS Server
this data structure is a member named "port43" 🔌 it's a plain character string holding the fully qualified host name or IP address of the WHOIS [RFC3912] server where the containing object instance can be found 🕵️♀️ note that this is not a URI, because there's no WHOIS URI scheme 🙅♀️💅
4.8. Public IDs 🆔
okay so this one maps a public identifier to an object class 🎀 it's an array named "publicIds", and every object in it has two REQUIRED members:
type-- a string saying what kind of public identifier it isidentifier-- a string holding a public identifier of the kind named in "type"
here's a cute little example 💖
"publicIds":
[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
]Figure 12
4.9. Object Class Name 🏷️
this one is a member named "objectClassName", and it gives the object class name of a particular object as a string ✨ it basically tells you what type of object you're looking at, so you know how to process it 🧚 an objectClassName is REQUIRED in all RDAP response objects so the type of the object can be interpreted. no skipping it, bestie 🫶
4.10. An Example 🌸
this is a full example response with both rdapConformance and notices baked in, and it's giving everything 💅
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Content Removed",
"description" :
[
"Without full authorization, content has been removed.",
"Sorry, dude!"
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/192.0.2.0/24",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/redaction_policy.html"
}
]
}
],
"lang" : "en",
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"startAddress" : "192.0.2.0",
"endAddress" : "192.0.2.255",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"ipVersion" : "v4",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
]
}Figure 13
5. Object Classes 🦋
okay so object classes are the structures you get back in a response to the queries specified in [RFC9082] 💜
every object class has a "links" array, as specified in Section 4.2 🔗 for every object class instance in a response, whether it's answering the query directly, embedded inside other object class instances, or sitting in a search result set, servers SHOULD provide a link that represents a URI for that instance using the "self" relationship, as described in the IANA registry specified by [RFC8288] ✨ as explained in Section 5.2, this may be not always be possible for nameserver data. clients MUST be able to process object instances without a self link 🙈 when a self link is present, clients can use it for caching data. servers MAY provide more than one self link for any given object instance. if a server doesn't provide any self link, clients might be unable to cache object class instances 💀
clients using self links for caching SHOULD NOT cache any object class instances where the authority of the self link is different from the authority of the server returning the data 🚫 skipping that check might result in cache poisoning, so please don't 😭
self links MUST contain a "type" element with the "application/rdap+json" media type when they reference RDAP object instances as defined by this document 🎀
here's the "links" array with a self link to an object class:
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.com/ip/2001:db8::123",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
]Figure 14
5.1. The Entity Object Class 🧑🤝🧑
the entity object class is everywhere in this document 🌈 it's the right response for the /entity/XXXX query defined in "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format" [RFC9082] ✨ it represents the info for organizations, corporations, governments, non-profits, clubs, individual persons, and informal groups of people. all of these are so similar that it's best to represent them in JSON [RFC8259] with one construct, the entity object class, so implementers can reuse code 🫶
the entity object class uses jCard [RFC7095] for contact info, like postal addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and names of organizations and individuals 📇 lowkey, a lot of what jCard can hold has little or no use in RDAP, like birthdays, anniversaries, and gender 🙈
the entity object is served by both RIRs and DNRs. here's an entity an RIR might serve 👑
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["n", {}, "text",
["User", "Joe", "", "", ["ing. jr", "M.Sc."]]
],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["adr",
{
"type":"home",
"label":"123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n"
},
"text",
[
"", "", "", "", "", "", ""
]
],
["tel",
{
"type":["work", "voice"],
"pref":"1"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "cell", "voice", "video", "text"] },
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-4321"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
"joe.user@example.com"
],
["geo", {
"type":"work"
}, "uri", "geo:46.772673,-71.282945"],
["key",
{ "type":"work" },
"uri",
"https://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc"
],
["tz", {},
"utc-offset", "-05:00"],
["url", { "type":"home" },
"uri", "https://example.org"]
]
],
"roles":[ "registrar" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events":[
{
"eventAction":"registration",
"eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"asEventActor":[
{
"eventAction":"last changed",
"eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}Figure 15
the entity object class can contain these members:
- objectClassName -- the string "entity"
- handle -- a string representing a registry-unique identifier of the entity
- vcardArray -- a jCard with the entity's contact information
- roles -- an array of strings, each signifying the relationship an object would have with its closest containing object (see Section 10.2.4 for a list of values)
- publicIds -- see Section 4.8
- entities -- an array of entity objects as defined by this section
- remarks -- see Section 4.3
- links -- see Section 4.2
- events -- see Section 4.5
- asEventActor -- this data structure takes the same form as the events data structure (see Section 4.5), but each object in the array MUST NOT have an "eventActor" member. these objects denote that the entity is an event actor for the given events. see Appendix B regarding the various ways events can be modeled 🎭
- status -- see Section 4.6
- port43 -- see Section 4.7
- networks -- an array of IP network objects as defined in Section 5.4
- autnums -- an array of autnum objects as defined in Section 5.5
entities can also have other entities embedded with them in an array 🪆 this is how you model an organization with specific individuals filling designated roles of responsibility. it's very main character energy 👑
here's an elided example of an entity with embedded entities:
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "ANENTITY",
"roles" : [ "registrar" ],
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle": "ANEMBEDDEDENTITY",
"roles" : [ "technical" ],
...
},
...
],
...
}Figure 16
and here's an entity a DNR might serve 🍓
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"status":[ "validated", "locked" ],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
],
"port43":"whois.example.net",
"events":[
{
"eventAction":"registration",
"eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction":"last changed",
"eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor":"joe@example.com"
}
]
}Figure 17
see Appendix A for how the entity object class models the various types of entities found in both RIRs and DNRs 🧩 and see Appendix C for structured vs. unstructured postal addresses in entities 🏠
5.2. The Nameserver Object Class ✨
Okay so the nameserver object class is where we keep track of DNS nameservers, and it works for both forward and reverse DNS 🌸. RIRs and some DNRs treat nameserver info as an attribute hanging off a domain name, but other DNRs treat nameservers as "first class objects" 💅. Heads up: some examples in this section have lines wrapped so they're easier to read 🙈.
The nameserver object class covers both models and all the variations in between 💜.
Here's an example of a nameserver object 🎀:
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "ns.fóo.example",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
"v4": [ "192.0.2.1", "192.0.2.2" ],
"v6": [ "2001:db8::123" ]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/nameserver/
ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/nameserver/
ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
]
}Figure 18
Figure 18 is a nameserver object with all the appropriate values filled in 💖. Registries using a first-class nameserver data model would embed this in domain objects, and they'd also let you reference it with the "/nameserver" query type (all depending on the registry operator's policy, obvi) 🧚. Other registries may pare the info back as needed. Figure 19 is a nameserver object like the ones found in RIRs and some DNRs, and Figure 20 is one like the ones found in other DNRs 🦋.
The following is an example of the simplest nameserver object:
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com"
}Figure 19
The following is an example of a simple nameserver object that might be commonly used by DNRs:
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"ipAddresses" : { "v6" : [ "2001:db8::123", "2001:db8::124" ] }
}Figure 20
Since some registries model nameservers as first-class objects, they can also have an array of entities (Section 5.1) embedded in them. Those entities signify the parties responsible for the maintenance, registrations, etc., of the nameservers 🫶.
Here's an elided example of a nameserver with embedded entities:
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns.xn--fo-5ja.example",
...
"entities" :
[
...
],
...
}Figure 21
The nameserver object class can contain the following members:
objectClassName-- the string"nameserver"handle-- a string representing a registry-unique identifier of the nameserverldhName-- a string containing the LDH name of the nameserver (see Section 3)unicodeName-- a string containing a DNS Unicode name of the nameserver (see Section 3)ipAddresses-- an object containing the following members:v6-- an array of strings containing IPv6 addresses of the nameserverv4-- an array of strings containing IPv4 addresses of the nameserver
entities-- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1status-- see Section 4.6remarks-- see Section 4.3links-- see Section 4.2port43-- see Section 4.7events-- see Section 4.5
5.3. The Domain Object Class 🌈
The domain object class represents a DNS name and its point of delegation 💅. For RIRs, these delegation points are in the reverse DNS tree, whereas for DNRs they're in the forward DNS tree 🌸.
In both cases, the high-level structure of the domain object class is pretty much the same: info about the domain registration, nameserver info related to the domain name, and entities related to the domain name (like registrant info, contacts, etc.) 🎀.
Here's an elided example of the domain object showing that high-level structure:
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXX",
"ldhName" : "blah.example.com",
...
"nameservers" :
[
...
],
...
"entities" :
[
...
]
}Figure 22
The domain object class can contain the following members:
objectClassName-- the string"domain"handle-- a string representing a registry-unique identifier of the domain object instanceldhName-- a string describing a domain name in LDH form as described in Section 3unicodeName-- a string containing a domain name with U-labels as described in Section 3variants-- an array of objects, each containing the following values:relation-- an array of strings, with each string denoting the relationship between the variants and the containing domain object (see Section 10.2.5 for a list of suggested variant relations).idnTable-- the character string literal that represents the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) table that has been registered in the IANA Repository of IDN Practices [IANA_IDNTABLES].variantNames-- an array of objects, with each object containing an"ldhName"member and a"unicodeName"member (see Section 3).
nameservers-- an array of nameserver objects as defined by Section 5.2secureDNS-- an object with the following members:zoneSigned-- booleantrueif the zone has been signed,falseotherwise.delegationSigned-- booleantrueif there are DS records in the parent,falseotherwise.maxSigLife-- an integer representing the signature lifetime in seconds to be used when creating the RRSIG DS record in the parent zone [RFC5910].dsData-- an array of objects, each with the following members:keyTag-- an integer as specified by the key tag field of a DNS DS record as specified by [RFC4034] in presentation formatalgorithm-- an integer as specified by the algorithm field of a DNS DS record as described by RFC 4034 in presentation formatdigest-- a string as specified by the digest field of a DNS DS record as specified by RFC 4034 in presentation formatdigestType-- an integer as specified by the digest type field of a DNS DS record as specified by RFC 4034 in presentation formatevents-- see Section 4.5links-- see Section 4.2
keyData-- an array of objects, each with the following members:flags-- an integer representing the flags field value in the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation formatprotocol-- an integer representation of the protocol field value of the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation formatpublicKey-- a string representation of the public key in the DNSKEY record [RFC4034] in presentation formatalgorithm-- an integer as specified by the algorithm field of a DNSKEY record as specified by [RFC4034] in presentation formatevents-- see Section 4.5links-- see Section 4.2
See Appendix D for background information on these objects.
entities-- an array of entity objects as defined by Section 5.1status-- see Section 4.6publicIds-- see Section 4.8remarks-- see Section 4.3links-- see Section 4.2port43-- see Section 4.7events-- see Section 4.5network-- represents the IP network for which a reverse DNS domain is referenced; see Section 5.4
Here's an example of a JSON domain object representing a reverse DNS delegation point that might be served by an RIR 🦋. Quick note: the dsData digest value has been modified to fit on one line ✨.
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"nameservers" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns1.rir.example"
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"ldhName" : "ns2.rir.example"
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
"delegationSigned": true,
"dsData":
[
{
"keyTag": 25345,
"algorithm": 8,
"digestType": 2,
"digest": "2788970E18EA14...C890C85B8205B94"
}
]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value": "https://example.net/domain/0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/domain/0.2.192.in-addr.arpa",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
] ],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value": "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
]
}
],
"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 23
Okay so next up is a JSON domain object 🧚 It's a forward DNS delegation point, the kind a DNR might serve, and it's giving full main character energy 💅 Heads up: the secureDNS keyData publicKey value got squished onto one line so it fits, no cap 🎀
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-5ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "fóo.example",
"variants" :
[
{
"relation" : [ "registered", "conjoined" ],
"variantNames" :
[
{
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-cka.example",
"unicodeName" : "fõo.example"
},
{
"ldhName" : "xn--fo-fka.example",
"unicodeName" : "föo.example"
}
]
},
{
"relation" : [ "unregistered", "registration restricted" ],
"idnTable": ".EXAMPLE Swedish",
"variantNames" :
[
{
"ldhName": "xn--fo-8ja.example",
"unicodeName" : "fôo.example"
}
]
}
],
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"ENS_Auth ID",
"identifier":"1234567890"
}
],
"nameservers" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns1.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
"v6": [ "2001:db8::123", "2001:db8::124" ],
"v4": [ "192.0.2.1", "192.0.2.2" ]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns1.example.com",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns1.example.com",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName" : "nameserver",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "ns2.example.com",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"ipAddresses" :
{
"v6" : [ "2001:db8::125", "2001:db8::126" ],
"v4" : [ "192.0.2.3", "192.0.2.4" ]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns2.example.com",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/nameserver/ns2.example.com",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
],
"secureDNS":
{
"zoneSigned": true,
"delegationSigned": true,
"maxSigLife": 604800,
"keyData":
[
{
"flags": 257,
"protocol": 3,
"algorithm": 8,
"publicKey": "AwEAAa6eDzronzjEDbT...Jg1M5N rBSPkuXpdFE=",
"events":
[
{
"eventAction": "last changed",
"eventDate": "2012-07-23T05:15:47Z"
}
]
}
]
},
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value": "https://example.net/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/domain/xn--fo-5ja.example",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"port43" : "whois.example.net",
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
},
{
"eventAction" : "transfer",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
},
{
"eventAction" : "expiration",
"eventDate" : "2016-12-31T23:59:59Z",
"eventActor" : "joe@example.com"
}
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"status" : [ "validated", "locked" ],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 24
5.4. The IP Network Object Class ✨
okay so the IP network object class is how we model IP network registrations from RIRs 🌍 It's the expected response for the /ip query from [RFC9082]. There's no equivalent for DNRs, so this one is just for RIRs, bestie. The high-level structure is info about the network registration plus the entities related to it (registrant info, contacts, the whole vibe) 💅
Here's an elided example so you can see the shape at a glance 👀
{
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXX",
...
"entities" :
[
...
]
}Figure 25
And here's a full JSON object for the network registration info 🦋
{
"objectClassName" : "ip network",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"startAddress" : "2001:db8::",
"endAddress" : "2001:db8:0:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff",
"ipVersion" : "v6",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country" : "AU",
"parentHandle" : "YYYY-RIR",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel" : "up",
"href" : "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/32",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/xxxx",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 26
The IP network object class can contain these members, and yes, they all matter 🧚
objectClassName-- the string"ip network"🎀handle-- a string holding the RIR-unique identifier of the network registration 🔑startAddress-- a string with the starting IP address of the network, either IPv4 or IPv6 🌸endAddress-- a string with the ending IP address of the network, either IPv4 or IPv6 🌸ipVersion-- a string saying which IP protocol version the network is:"v4"means an IPv4 network, and"v6"means an IPv6 network 🦋name-- a string for an identifier the registration holder assigned to the network registration 🏷️type-- a string with an RIR-specific classification of the network, based on that RIR's registration model 📋country-- a string with the two-character country code of the network 🌍parentHandle-- a string with the RIR-unique identifier of the parent network of this network registration 👑status-- an array of strings showing the state of the IP network, as defined by Section 4.6 ✨entities-- an array of entity objects, as defined by Section 5.1 💜remarks-- see Section 4.3 📝links-- see Section 4.2 🔗port43-- see Section 4.7 🛰️events-- see Section 4.5 🗓️
5.5. The Autonomous System Number Object Class 🌈
The Autonomous System number (autnum) object class models Autonomous System number registrations from RIRs. It's the expected response to an /autnum query, as defined by [RFC9082]. Again, no equivalent for DNRs 🙈 Its high-level structure is info about the Autonomous System number registration plus the entities related to the autnum registration (registrant info, contacts, etc.), and it's basically the same energy as the IP network object class 💖
Here's an example JSON object representing an autnum 🍓
{
"objectClassName" : "autnum",
"handle" : "XXXX-RIR",
"startAutnum" : 65536,
"endAutnum" : 65541,
"name": "AS-RTR-1",
"type" : "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"status" : [ "active" ],
"country": "AU",
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/autnum/65537",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/autnum/65537",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel" : "self",
"href" : "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 27
The Autonomous System number object class can contain these members 🧁
objectClassName-- the string"autnum"🎀handle-- a string holding the RIR-unique identifier of the autnum registration 🔑startAutnum-- an unsigned 32-bit integer for the starting number [RFC5396] in the block of Autonomous System numbers 🔢endAutnum-- an unsigned 32-bit integer for the ending number [RFC5396] in the block of Autonomous System numbers 🔢name-- a string for an identifier the registration holder assigned to the autnum registration 🏷️type-- a string with an RIR-specific classification of the autnum, based on that RIR's registration model 📋status-- an array of strings showing the state of the autnum, as defined by Section 4.6 ✨country-- a string with the two-character country code of the autnum 🌍entities-- an array of entity objects, as defined by Section 5.1 💜remarks-- see Section 4.3 📝links-- see Section 4.2 🔗port43-- see Section 4.7 🛰️events-- see Section 4.5 🗓️
6. Error Response Body ✨
Okay so some non-answer responses MAY come back with an entity body that's way more descriptive, bestie 🫶
The basic vibe is an object class with a REQUIRED error code number (matching the HTTP response code), plus an OPTIONAL string called "title" and an OPTIONAL array of strings called "description". Iconic structure, no notes 💅
Here's the common response body:
{
"errorCode": 418,
"title": "Your Beverage Choice is Not Available",
"description":
[
"I know coffee has more ummppphhh.",
"Sorry, dude!"
]
}Figure 28
Now here's the common response body with an rdapConformance and notices data structures, so it's giving extra main character energy 🌸
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Beverage Policy",
"description" :
[
"Beverages with caffeine for keeping horses awake."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/ip/192.0.2.0/24",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/redaction_policy.html"
}
]
}
],
"lang" : "en",
"errorCode": 418,
"title": "Your beverage choice is not available",
"description":
[
"I know coffee has more ummppphhh.",
"Sorry, dude!"
]
}Figure 29
7. Responding to Help Queries 🎀
For /help queries defined by [RFC9082], the move is to use the notices structure from Section 4.3. Slay, simple 🧚
Here's an example of a /help response that includes the rdapConformance data structure 💜
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Authentication Policy",
"description" :
[
"Access to sensitive data for users with proper credentials."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/auth_policy.html"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 30
8. Responding To Searches 🔍
[RFC9082] gives us three kinds of searches: domains, nameservers, and entities. Responses take the form of an array of object instances, where each instance is the right object class for the search (so a /domains search gets back an array of domain object instances). Those arrays live inside the response object, obviously 💅
The array names go like this:
- for /domains searches, the array is
"domainSearchResults" - for /nameservers searches, the array is
"nameserverSearchResults" - for /entities searches, the array is
"entitySearchResults"
Here's an elided example of a /domains search response 🦋
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
...
"domainSearchResults" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "1-XXXX",
"ldhName" : "1.example.com",
...
},
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "2-XXXX",
"ldhName" : "2.example.com",
...
}
]
}Figure 31
9. Indicating Truncated Responses 🌈
Sometimes a response has to be trimmed, like the data needs limiting or some parts have to be left out. When that happens, the response counts as "truncated" 🙈 A truncated response is still valid JSON, but some results in a search set, or some data in an object, just aren't provided by the server. The server can flag this by including a typed notice in the response object, which is honestly a very clean move 🫶
Here's an elided example of a truncated search response:
{
"rdapConformance" :
[
"rdap_level_0"
],
"notices" :
[
{
"title" : "Search Policy",
"type" : "result set truncated due to authorization",
"description" :
[
"Search results are limited to 25 per day per querying IP."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/search_policy.html"
}
]
}
],
"domainSearchResults" :
[
...
]
}Figure 32
A similar trick works with a typed remark when a single object came back but some of its data got cut. Picture an entity object with only a partial set of the IP networks linked to it 👀
Here's an elided example of truncated entity data:
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "ANENTITY",
"roles" : [ "registrant" ],
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle": "ANEMBEDDEDENTITY",
"roles" : [ "technical" ],
...
},
...
],
"networks" :
[
...
],
...
"remarks" :
[
{
"title" : "Data Policy",
"type" : "object truncated due to unexplainable reason",
"description" :
[
"Some of the data in this object has been removed."
],
"links" :
[
{
"value" : "https://example.net/help",
"rel" : "alternate",
"type" : "text/html",
"href" : "https://www.example.com/data_policy.html"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 33
10. IANA Considerations 📋
IANA updated how the "transfer" event action is described, and you can find that in Section 10.2.3. Read it, bestie 💅
10.1. RDAP JSON Media Type Registration
IANA updated the media type registration as follows. ✨
This spec registers the application/rdap+json media type, and here are the details:
- Type name:
application - Subtype name:
rdap+json - Required parameters:
n/a - Encoding considerations: See Section 3.1 of [RFC6839].
- Security considerations: The media represented by this identifier does not have security considerations beyond those found in Section 12 of [RFC8259].
- Interoperability considerations: There are no known interoperability problems regarding this media format.
- Published specification: RFC 9083
- Applications that use this media type: Implementations of the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP).
- Additional information: This media type is a product of the IETF REGEXT Working Group. The REGEXT charter, information on the REGEXT mailing list, and other documents produced by the REGEXT Working Group can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/regext/. - Person & email address to contact for further information: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
- Intended usage: COMMON
- Restrictions on usage: none
- Author: Andy Newton
- Change controller: IETF
- Provisional Registration: No
10.2. JSON Values Registry 🌸
IANA made a new category in the protocol registries called "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)". Inside that category, IANA set up a URL-referenceable, stand-alone registry called "RDAP JSON Values". This registry is for the notices and remarks (Section 4.3), status (Section 4.6), role (Section 5.1), event action (Section 4.5), and domain variant relation (Section 5.3) fields in RDAP. It's a whole organised little world 🧚
Every entry in the registry has these fields:
- Value -- the string value being registered.
- Type -- the type of value being registered. It should be one of the following:
- "notice or remark type" -- denotes a type of notice or remark.
- "status" -- denotes a value for the "status" object member as defined by Section 4.6.
- "role" -- denotes a value for the "role" array as defined in Section 5.1.
- "event action" -- denotes a value for an event action as defined in Section 4.5.
- "domain variant relation" -- denotes a relationship between a domain and a domain variant as defined in Section 5.3.
- Description -- a one- or two-sentence description regarding the meaning of the value, how it might be used, and/or how it should be interpreted by clients.
- Registrant Name -- the name of the person registering the value.
- Registrant Contact Information -- an email address, postal address, or some other information to be used to contact the registrant.
This registry runs under the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC8126]. 🔥
When designated experts review registrations, they should narrowly judge them on these criteria:
- Values in need of being placed into multiple types must be assigned a separate registration for each type.
- Values must be strings. They should be multiple words separated by single space characters. Every character should be lowercased. If possible, every word should be given in English and each character should be US-ASCII.
- Registrations should not duplicate the meaning of any existing registration. That is, if a request for a registration is significantly similar in nature to an existing registration, the request should be denied. For example, the terms "maintainer" and "registrant" are significantly similar in nature as they both denote a holder of a domain name or Internet number resource. In cases where it may be reasonably argued that machine interpretation of two similar values may alter the operation of client software, designated experts should not judge the values to be of significant similarity.
- Registrations should be relevant to the common usages of RDAP. Designated experts may rely upon the serving of the value by a DNR or RIR to make this determination.
The following sections provide initial registrations into this registry. 🦋
10.2.1. Notice and Remark Types ✨
okay so these values got registered in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry 💖 all of them are notice and remark types, and the IESG is the registrant for each one 🎀
Value: result set truncated due to authorization
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The list of results does not contain all results due to
lack of authorization. This may indicate to some clients that
proper authorization will yield a longer result set.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: result set truncated due to excessive load
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The list of results does not contain all results due to
an excessively heavy load on the server. This may indicate to
some clients that requerying at a later time will yield a longer
result set.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: result set truncated due to unexplainable reasons
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The list of results does not contain all results for an
unexplainable reason. This may indicate to some clients that
requerying for any reason will not yield a longer result set.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: object truncated due to authorization
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The object does not contain all data due to lack of
authorization.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: object truncated due to excessive load
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The object does not contain all data due to an
excessively heavy load on the server. This may indicate to some
clients that requerying at a later time will yield all data of the
object.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: object truncated due to unexplainable reasons
Type: notice and remark type
Description: The object does not contain all data for an
unexplainable reason.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org10.2.2. Status 💅
next up, the status values! same registry, same IESG registrant, and these are the ones that tell you what state an object instance is in 🦋
Value: validated
Type: status
Description: Signifies that the data of the object instance has been
found to be accurate. This type of status is usually found on
entity object instances to note the validity of identifying
contact information.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: renew prohibited
Type: status
Description: Renewal or reregistration of the object instance is
forbidden.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: update prohibited
Type: status
Description: Updates to the object instance are forbidden.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: transfer prohibited
Type: status
Description: Transfers of the registration from one registrar to
another are forbidden. This type of status normally applies to
DNR domain names.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: delete prohibited
Type: status
Description: Deletion of the registration of the object instance is
forbidden. This type of status normally applies to DNR domain
names.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: proxy
Type: status
Description: The registration of the object instance has been
performed by a third party. This is most commonly applied to
entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: private
Type: status
Description: The information of the object instance is not
designated for public consumption. This is most commonly applied
to entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: removed
Type: status
Description: Some of the information of the object instance has not
been made available and has been removed. This is most commonly
applied to entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: obscured
Type: status
Description: Some of the information of the object instance has been
altered for the purposes of not readily revealing the actual
information of the object instance. This is most commonly applied
to entities.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: associated
Type: status
Description: The object instance is associated with other object
instances in the registry. This is most commonly used to signify
that a nameserver is associated with a domain or that an entity is
associated with a network resource or domain.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: active
Type: status
Description: The object instance is in use. For domain names, it
signifies that the domain name is published in DNS. For network
and autnum registrations, it signifies that they are allocated or
assigned for use in operational networks. This maps to the "OK"
status of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730].
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: inactive
Type: status
Description: The object instance is not in use. See "active".
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: locked
Type: status
Description: Changes to the object instance cannot be made,
including the association of other object instances.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: pending create
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the creation of the
object instance, but this action is not yet complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: pending renew
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the renewal of the
object instance, but this action is not yet complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: pending transfer
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the transfer of the
object instance, but this action is not yet complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: pending update
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the update or
modification of the object instance, but this action is not yet
complete.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: pending delete
Type: status
Description: A request has been received for the deletion or removal
of the object instance, but this action is not yet complete. For
domains, this might mean that the name is no longer published in
DNS but has not yet been purged from the registry database.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org10.2.3. Event Actions 🌈
last one in the registry, and these are the event actions that record what happened to an object and when 🧚
Value: registration
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was initially registered.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: reregistration
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was registered subsequently to
initial registration.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: last changed
Type: event action
Description: An action noting when the information in the object
instance was last changed.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: expiration
Type: event action
Description: The object instance has been removed or will be removed
at a predetermined date and time from the registry.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: deletion
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was removed from the registry at a
point in time that was not predetermined.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: reinstantiation
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was reregistered after having been
removed from the registry.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: transfer
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was transferred from one registrar
to another.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: locked
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was locked (see the "locked"
status).
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: unlocked
Type: event action
Description: The object instance was unlocked (see the "locked"
status).
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org10.2.4. Roles 🎀
okay so bestie, the IANA registry for "RDAP JSON Values" has a whole list of roles that entity objects can play. slay 💅 here they are:
Value: registrant Type: role Description: The entity object instance is the registrant of the registration. In some registries, this is known as a maintainer. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: technical Type: role Description: The entity object instance is a technical contact for the registration. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: administrative Type: role Description: The entity object instance is an administrative contact for the registration. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: abuse Type: role Description: The entity object instance handles network abuse issues on behalf of the registrant of the registration. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: billing Type: role Description: The entity object instance handles payment and billing issues on behalf of the registrant of the registration. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: registrar Type: role Description: The entity object instance represents the authority responsible for the registration in the registry. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: reseller Type: role Description: The entity object instance represents a third party through which the registration was conducted (i.e., not the registry or registrar). Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: sponsor Type: role Description: The entity object instance represents a domain policy sponsor, such as an ICANN-approved sponsor. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: proxy Type: role Description: The entity object instance represents a proxy for another entity object, such as a registrant. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: notifications Type: role Description: An entity object instance designated to receive notifications about association object instances. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: noc Type: role Description: The entity object instance handles communications related to a network operations center (NOC). Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
10.2.5. Variant Relations 🦋
ok this one is giving "who's in my variant domain names and what are the rules" 🌈 the registry has these values:
Value: registered Type: domain variant relation Description: The variant names are registered in the registry. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: unregistered Type: domain variant relation Description: The variant names are not found in the registry. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: registration restricted Type: domain variant relation Description: Registration of the variant names is restricted to certain parties or within certain rules. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: open registration Type: domain variant relation Description: Registration of the variant names is available to generally qualified registrants. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Value: conjoined Type: domain variant relation Description: Registration of the variant names occurs automatically with the registration of the containing domain registration. Registrant Name: IESG Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
11. Security Considerations 🔥💀
okay this section is SERIOUS and I need you to take it seriously bestie 😭 this spec models info serialized in JSON format. And since JSON is a subset of JavaScript, implementations are advised to follow the security considerations outlined in Section 12 of [RFC8259] to prevent code injection. Literally a must-read ⚠️
Though it's not specific to JSON, RDAP implementers should be aware of the security considerations specified in [RFC7480] and the security requirements and considerations in [RFC7481]. no skipping these, iykyk 🫶
RDAP responses allow for retrieval of DNSSEC (key) related information, but the RRSIG DS from the parent zone is not conveyed alongside it. This means the DNSSEC keys retrieved by RDAP are disconnected from their containing PKI, and as such are not generally expected to be trusted without additional information. In particular, the HTTPS channel protecting the RDAP connection is not expected to be authorized to certify the validity of the DNSSEC keys. 🙈
Clients caching data, especially clients using RDAP-specific caches (instead of HTTP-layer caches), should have safeguards to prevent cache poisoning. See Section 5 for advice on using the self links for caching. 🍓
Finally, service operators should be aware of the privacy mechanisms noted in Section 13. 🌸
12. Internationalization Considerations 🌍
12.1. Character Encoding 🔤
okay so the default text encoding for JSON responses in RDAP is UTF-8 [RFC3629], and all servers and clients MUST support UTF-8. no excuses periodt 💅
12.2. URIs and IRIs 🔗
[RFC7480] defines the use of URIs and IRIs in RDAP. ✨
12.3. Language Tags 🏳️🌈
Section 4.4 defines the use of language tags in the JSON responses defined in this document. 💖
12.4. Internationalized Domain Names 🌐
ok so IDNs are denoted in this specification by the separation of DNS names in LDH form and Unicode form (see Section 3). Representation of IDNs in registries is described by the "variants" object in Section 5.3 and the suggested values listed in Section 10.2.5. it's giving main character energy 👑
13. Privacy Considerations 🙈🎀
this spec suggests status values to denote contact and registrant info that has been marked as private and/or removed or obscured. See Section 10.2.2 for the complete list of status values. A few of the status values indicate there are privacy concerns with the object instance. The following status codes SHOULD be used to describe data elements of a response when appropriate:
- private -- The object is not be shared in query responses, unless the user is authorized to view this information.
- removed -- Data elements within the object have been collected but have been omitted from the response. This option can be used to prevent unauthorized access to associated object instances without the need to mark them as private.
- obscured -- Data elements within the object have been collected, but the response value has been altered so that values are not easily discernible. A value changed from "1212" to "XXXX" is an example of obscured data. This option may reveal privacy sensitive information and should only be used when data sensitivity does not require a more protective option like "private" or "removed".
See Appendix A.1 for an example of applying those values to contacts and registrants. 🦋
14. References 📚
14.1. Normative References 🧚
[ISO.3166.2020] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions", Fourth edition, ISO Standard 3166, August 2020.
[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>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC5396] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Textual Representation of Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", RFC 5396, DOI 10.17487/RFC5396, December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5396>.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7095>.
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95, 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)", STD 95, RFC 7481, DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082, DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>.
14.2. Informative References 📚✨
These are the extra reads that aren't required to implement the spec, but they're super helpful for the backstory 🧠
[IANA_IDNTABLES]: IANA, "Repository of IDN Practices",https://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables.[JSON_ascendancy]: MacVittie, L., "The Stealthy Ascendancy of JSON", April 2011,https://devcentral.f5.com/s/articles/the-stealthy-ascendancy-of-json.[JSON_performance_study]: Nurseitov, N., Paulson, M., Reynolds, R., and C. Izurieta, "Comparison of JSON and XML Data Interchange Formats: A Case Study", 2009,https://www.cs.montana.edu/izurieta/pubs/caine2009.pdf.[RFC3912]: Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912.[RFC5730]: Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730.[RFC5910]: Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910, DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910.[RFC6350]: Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350.[RFC6839]: Hansen, T. and A. Melnikov, "Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes", RFC 6839, DOI 10.17487/RFC6839, January 2013,https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6839.
Appendix A. Suggested Data Modeling with the Entity Object Class 🎀
A.1. Registrants and Contacts 💁♀️
Okay so this doc doesn't give registrants and contacts their own object classes 🙅♀️ Instead, you can just use the entity object class to represent them. When the entity object lives inside a containing object, like a domain name or IP network, the "roles" string array is how you show the relationship 💜 It's recommended that you use the values from Section 10.2.4.
Here's an elided containing object with an embedded entity who is both the registrant and the administrative contact 👑
{
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles" : [ "registrant", "administrative" ],
"remarks" :
[
{
"description" :
[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
},
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 34
Real talk, lots of use cases need to hide or obscure a registrant's or contact's info because of policy or other ops stuff 🙈 Registries can flag that with "status" values (see Section 10.2.2) ✨
Here's an elided example of a registrant whose info has been swapped out to show a third party 🦋
{
...
"entities" :
[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle" : "XXXX",
...
"roles" : [ "registrant", "administrative" ],
"status" : [ "proxy", "private", "obscured" ]
}
]
}Figure 35
A.2. Registrars 🏪
This doc doesn't have a specific object class for registrars either, but just like registrants and contacts (see Appendix A.1), the "roles" string array maybe used 🌸 Plus, a lot of registrars have publicly assigned identifiers, and the publicIds structure (Section 4.8) is where that info goes 🫶
Here's an elided containing object with an embedded entity that's a registrar 🍓
{
...
"entities":[
{
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe's Fish, Chips, and Domains"],
["kind", {}, "text", "org"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["tel",
{
"type":["work", "voice"],
"pref":"1"
},
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joes_fish_chips_and_domains@example.com"
]
]
],
"roles":[ "registrar" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"alternate",
"type":"text/html",
"href":"https://www.example.com"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 36
Appendix B. Modeling Events 🗓️
Events are actions that happened to a registered object at a certain date and time 💅 Each one has three properties: the action, the actor, and the date and time of the event (which is sometimes in the future) ⏰ Sometimes the identity of the actor just isn't captured, and that's totally fine 🫠
There are three ways to model events 🧚
- events with no designated actor
- events where the actor is only designated by an identifier
- events where the actor can be modeled as an entity
For the first one, you use the events data structure (Section 4.5) but leave out the "eventActor" object member 💖
Here's an example of an "events" array without the "eventActor":
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]Figure 37
For the second one, you use the events data structure (Section 4.5) with the "eventActor" object member 🔥
Here's an example of an "events" array with the "eventActor":
"events" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "registration",
"eventActor" : "XYZ-NIC",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]Figure 38
For the third one, the "asEventActor" array shows up when an entity (Section 5.1) is embedded into another object class 🦋 It follows the same structure as the "events" array, but it doesn't have "eventActor" attributes 💜
Here's an elided domain object where an entity is the event actor 👑
{
"objectClassName" : "domain",
"handle" : "XXXX",
"ldhName" : "foo.example",
"status" : [ "locked", "transfer prohibited" ],
...
"entities" :
[
{
"handle" : "XXXX",
...
"asEventActor" :
[
{
"eventAction" : "last changed",
"eventDate" : "1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
]
}
]
}Figure 39
Appendix C. Structured vs. Unstructured Addresses 🏡
Okay bestie, the entity (Section 5.1) object class uses jCard [RFC7095] to represent contact info, including postal addresses 📬. jCard can hold multiple language preferences, multiple email addresses and phone numbers, and multiple postal addresses, in both a structured and an unstructured format 💅. This section explains how jCard handles both kinds of addresses ✨.
Here's an example jCard 🎀
{
"vcardArray":[
"vcard",
[
["version", {}, "text", "4.0"],
["fn", {}, "text", "Joe User"],
["n", {}, "text",
["User", "Joe", "", "", ["ing. jr", "M.Sc."]]
],
["kind", {}, "text", "individual"],
["lang", {
"pref":"1"
}, "language-tag", "fr"],
["lang", {
"pref":"2"
}, "language-tag", "en"],
["org", {
"type":"work"
}, "text", "Example"],
["title", {}, "text", "Research Scientist"],
["role", {}, "text", "Project Lead"],
["adr",
{ "type":"work" },
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
["adr",
{
"type":"home",
"label":"123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n"
},
"text",
[
"", "", "", "", "", "", ""
]
],
["tel",
{ "type":["work", "voice"], "pref":"1" },
"uri", "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
],
["tel",
{
"type":["work", "cell", "voice", "video", "text"]
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-1234"
],
["email",
{ "type":"work" },
"text", "joe.user@example.com"
],
["geo", {
"type":"work"
}, "uri", "geo:46.772673,-71.282945"],
["key",
{ "type":"work" },
"uri", "https://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc"
],
["tz", {},
"utc-offset", "-05:00"],
["url", { "type":"home" },
"uri", "https://example.org"]
]
]
}Figure 40
The arrays in Figure 40 with the first member of "adr" are the postal addresses 🏠. In the first example, the address is an array of strings, which makes it a structured address 💖. Any part of the structured address that doesn't apply gets an empty string. Each member of that array lines up with a position in a vCard, as defined in [RFC6350] 🧩. Here's what each position means in this example:
- post office box -- not applicable; empty string
- extended address (e.g., apartment or suite number) -- Suite 1234
- street address -- 4321 Rue Somewhere
- locality (e.g., city) -- Quebec
- region (e.g., state or province) -- QC
- postal code -- G1V 2M2
- country name (full name) -- Canada
The second example is an unstructured address 🌸. It uses the label attribute, which is a string with a newline (\n) character that separates the address components. The order and format are unordered and unspecified, so the label is basically free-form 🙈. Note that this example still includes the structured address array, but every string in it is empty.
Appendix D. Secure DNS 🔐
Section 5.3 defines the secureDNS member, which represents secure DNS information about domain names 🦋.
DNSSEC gives DNS data integrity by digitally signing resource records ✍️. To turn it on, the zone is signed with one or more private keys, and the signatures are stored as RRSIG records. To complete the chain of trust up through the DNS zone hierarchy, a digest of each DNSKEY record (which holds the public key) must be loaded into the parent zone, stored as DS records, and signed with the parent's private key (RRSIG DS record). This is described in "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions" [RFC4034] 🔗. The registration authority can create those DS records in the parent zone, as described in "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" [RFC5910] 💜.
Only DS-related information is provided by RDAP, because other information usually isn't stored in the registration database 🗂️. You can get other DNSSEC-related info with other DNS tools, like dig 🛠️.
The domain object class (Section 5.3) can represent this information using either the dsData or keyData object arrays 🌈. Client implementers should be aware that some registries don't collect, or don't publish, all of the secure DNS meta-information 👀.
Appendix E. Motivations for Using JSON 🧚
This section answers a question people ask a lot: why JSON instead of other data formats, especially XML? 🤔
People often point out that many DNRs and one RIR support the EPP [RFC5730] standard, which is serialized as XML. The logic goes like this: since EPP is common in the industry, XML must be the more natural choice. EPP does influence this specification a lot, but it serves a different purpose. EPP handles provisioning of Internet resources between registries and accredited registrars, so its audience is much narrower than the one RDAP is built for 💅.
RDAP, by contrast, has a broader audience and is designed for public consumption of data 🌍. Experience from RIRs with first-generation RESTful web services for WHOIS shows that a large percentage of clients work inside browsers and other platforms where full-blown XML stacks aren't readily available, and where JSON is a better fit 🍓.
Also, while EPP is used across much of the DNR community, it isn't a universal constant in that industry 🤷♀️. And finally, EPP's use of XML came before JSON was specified. If EPP had been defined today, it might very well have used JSON instead of XML 😭✨.
Beyond the DNR and RIR communities, the broader Internet industry is also switching from XML to JSON, especially for RESTful web services (see [JSON_ascendancy]) 🚀. Studies have also found that JSON is generally less bulky and therefore faster to parse (see [JSON_performance_study]) 🏃♀️💨.
Appendix F. Changes from RFC 7483 ✨
okay so this appendix is basically the changelog bestie 🎀 it's a list of every little glow-up RFC 9083 got compared to RFC 7483, and I'm obsessed because it shows how the spec matured over time 🦋
- Addressed known errata. 🩹
- Updated references to 7482 to RFC 9082. Adjusted case of "xxxx" used in examples where "XXXX" was previously used, and removed an "X" from "XXXXX". Changed IPv6 address example using "C00" to "c00". Added "a string representing" to the definitions of startAddress and endAddress. Removed "entity" from "Autonomous System Number Entity Object Class". Added "an unsigned 32-bit integer" to the definition of startAutnum and endAutnum. Added "a string representing" to the definition of name in the IP network and ASN object classes. Clarified rdapConformance identifier registration expectations in Section 4.1. Changed "lunarNic_level_0" to "lunarNIC_level_0". 🌙
- Clarified that the "value", "rel" and "href" JSON values MUST be specified in the "links" array. 🔗
- Clarified that the "description" array is required in the Notices and Remarks data structures and other values are OPTIONAL. 📝
- Noted that all members of the "events" and "Public IDs" arrays are REQUIRED. 🫶
- Fix "self" link values in examples. Changed "http" to "https" link values in examples. Noted that Figure 18 is an example of a nameserver object with all "appropriate" values given. In Appendix C, quoted the word "label" in "label attribute". Added reference to "status" definition in the descriptions for IP networks and autnums. Fixed a 404 for the informative reference to "The Stealthy Ascendancy of JSON". Added "boolean" to the definition of zoneSigned. 🛠️
- Clarified REQUIRED and OPTIONAL members of the "events" array. 🎀
- Changed "SHOULD not" to "SHOULD NOT" in Section 5. 🙈
- Updated normative references (RFC 5226 to RFC 8126, RFC 5988 to RFC 8288, RFC 7159 to RFC 8259). Changed examples using "ns1.xn--fo-5ja.example" to split URLs to avoid long lines. 📚
- Added acknowledgments. 💜
- Changed "The "lang" attribute may appear anywhere in an object class or data structure except for in jCard objects" to "The "lang" attribute as defined in this section MAY appear anywhere in an object class or data structure, except for in jCard objects. jCard supports similar functionality by way of the LANGUAGE property parameter (see Section 5.1 of RFC 6350 [RFC6350]". 🌐
- Changed "simple data types conveyed in JSON strings" to "simple data types conveyed in JSON primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, and null)". Changed "In other words, servers are free to not include JSON members containing registration data based on their own policies" to "In other words, servers are free to omit unrequired/optional JSON members containing registration data based on their own policies". 🧩
- Changed "This data structure appears only in the topmost JSON object of a response" to "This data structure MUST appear in the topmost JSON object of a response". 🍓
- Changed "Some non-answer responses may return entity bodies with information that could be more descriptive" to "Some non-answer responses MAY return entity bodies with information that could be more descriptive". 🌸
- Changed "The basic structure of that response is an object class containing an error code number (corresponding to the HTTP response code) followed by a string named "title" and an array of strings named "description"" to "The basic structure of that response is an object class containing a REQUIRED error code number (corresponding to the HTTP response code) followed by an OPTIONAL string named "title" and an OPTIONAL array of strings named "description"". 🚨
- Changed the "Autonomous System Number Object Class" section title to "The Autonomous System Number Object Class" for consistency with other section titles. Removed trailing periods in the "Terminology and Definitions" section for consistency. Changed instances of "lunarNic" to "lunarNIC" for consistency. Removed an extraneous trailing period after the eventDate description. Changed a "." to ";" in the description of the "network" member of the domain object class. Changed "The high-level structure of the autnum object class consists of information about the network registration" to "The high-level structure of the autnum object class consists of information about the Autonomous System number registration". Changed "registry unique" to "registry-unique". 🧁
- Changed "registrant" to "registrar" in the description of the "transfer" event action to address erratum 6158. Added IANA instructions to correct the description of the value in the registry. 🦋
- Added text to Section 4.2 to note that "self" and "related" "href" URIs MUST NOT be the same. 🔁
- Added text to Section 4.2 to describe return of IDNs in LDH name format. 🌈
- Added text to note that the "fn" member of a contact object MAY be empty in Section 3. 👑
- Added text to clarify rdapConformance requirements in Section 4.1. 💅
- Added "obsoletes 7483" to the headers, Abstract, and Introduction. Updated BCP 14 boilerplate. Updated IANA Considerations to note that this RFC (a product of the REGEXT Working Group) replaces RFC 7483. Changed "simple string" to "simple character string" in Sections 3 and 4.7. Clarified requirement for the "fn" member in Section 3. Modified the requirement for rdapConformance placement in Section 4.1. Changed "jCard" to "vCard" LANGUAGE property reference in Section 4.4. Changed "no use" to "little or no use" in Section 5.1. Added example line wrap note in Section 5.2. Modified the definition of "idnTable" in Section 5.3. Modified the dsData and keyData examples in Section 5.3. Changed "2001:c00::/23" to "2001:db8::/32" in Section 5.4. Expanded the definition of "type" in Sections 5.4 and 5.5. Modified example autnums in Section 5.5. Added text to the Security Considerations section to note that DNSSEC information returned in a response cannot be trusted directly. 🔐
Acknowledgments 🫶
This document is derived from original work on RIR responses in JSON by Byron J. Ellacott, Arturo L. Servin, Kaveh Ranjbar, and Andrew L. Newton. Additionally, this document incorporates work on DNR responses in JSON by Ning Kong, Linlin Zhou, Jiagui Xie, and Sean Shen.
The components of the DNR object classes are derived from a categorization of WHOIS response formats created by Ning Kong, Linlin Zhou, Guangqing Deng, Steve Sheng, Francisco Arias, Ray Bellis, and Frederico Neves.
Tom Harrison, Murray Kucherawy, Ed Lewis, Audric Schiltknecht, Naoki Kambe, Maarten Bosteels, Mario Loffredo, and Jasdip Singh contributed significant review comments and provided clarifying text. James Mitchell provided text regarding the processing of unknown JSON attributes and identified issues leading to the remodeling of events. Ernie Dainow and Francisco Obispo provided concrete suggestions that led to a better variant model for domain names.
Ernie Dainow provided the background information on the secure DNS attributes and objects for domains, informative text on DNSSEC, and many other attributes that appear throughout the object classes of this document.
The switch to and incorporation of jCard was performed by Simon Perreault.
Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy chaired the IETF's WEIRDS Working Group from which this document was originally created. James Galvin and Antoin Verschuren chaired the REGEXT Working Group that worked on this document. 🌟
Authors' Addresses 📮
Scott Hollenbeck Verisign Labs 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 United States of America
Email: shollenbeck@verisign.com URI: https://www.verisignlabs.com/
Andy Newton Amazon Web Services, Inc. 13200 Woodland Park Road Herndon, VA 20171 United States of America
Email: andy@hxr.us
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9083 2021-06
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms