RFC 9083 | RDAP JSON Responses | June 2021 |
Hollenbeck & Newton | Standards Track | [Page] |
This document describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses. This document obsoletes RFC 7483.¶
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083.¶
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) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶
This document describes responses in the JSON [RFC8259] format for the queries as defined by the Registration Data Access Protocol Query Format [RFC9082]. A communication protocol for exchanging queries and responses is described in [RFC7480]. This document obsoletes RFC 7483.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
The following list describes terminology and definitions used throughout this document:¶
The data model for JSON responses is specified in five sections:¶
The object classes represent responses for two major categories of data: responses returned by RIRs for registration data related to IP addresses, reverse DNS names, and Autonomous System numbers and responses returned by DNRs for registration data related to forward DNS names. The following object classes are returned by both RIRs and DNRs:¶
The information served by both RIRs and DNRs for these object classes overlap extensively and are given in this document as a unified model for both classes of service.¶
In addition to the object classes listed above, RIRs also serve the following object classes:¶
Object classes defined in this document represent a minimal set of what a compliant client/server needs to understand to function correctly; however, some deployments may want to include additional object classes to suit individual needs. Anticipating this need for extension, Section 2.1 of this document defines a mechanism for extending the JSON objects that are described in this document.¶
Positive responses take two forms. A response to a lookup of a single object in the registration system yields a JSON object, which is the subject of the lookup. A response to a search for multiple objects yields a JSON object that contains an array of JSON objects that are the subject of the search. In each type of response, other data structures are present within the topmost JSON object.¶
Clients of these JSON responses SHOULD ignore unrecognized JSON members in responses. Servers can insert members into the JSON responses, which are not specified in this document, but that does not constitute an error in the response. Servers that insert such unspecified members into JSON responses SHOULD have member names prefixed with a short identifier followed by an underscore followed by a meaningful name. It has been observed that these short identifiers aid software implementers with identifying the specification of the JSON member, and failure to use one could cause an implementer to assume the server is erroneously using a name from this specification. This allowance does not apply to jCard [RFC7095] objects. The full JSON name (the prefix plus the underscore plus the meaningful name) SHOULD adhere to the character and name limitations of the prefix registry described in [RFC7480]. Failure to use these limitations could result in slower adoption as these limitations have been observed to aid some client programming models.¶
Consider the following JSON response with JSON members, all of which are specified in this document.¶
If The Registry of the Moon desires to express information not found in this specification, it might select "lunarNIC" as its identifying prefix and insert, as an example, the member named "lunarNIC_beforeOneSmallStep" to signify registrations occurring before the first moon landing and the member named "lunarNIC_harshMistressNotes" that contains other descriptive text.¶
Consider the following JSON response with JSON names, some of which should be ignored by clients without knowledge of their meaning.¶
Insertion of unrecognized members ignored by clients may also be used for future revisions to this specification.¶
Clients processing JSON responses need to be prepared for members representing registration data specified in this document to be absent from a response. In other words, servers are free to omit 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.¶
JSON [RFC8259] defines the data types of a number, character string, boolean, array, object, and null. This section describes the semantics and/or syntax reference for common, JSON character strings used in this document.¶
Contact information is defined using 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 does not exist or is redacted.¶
This section defines common data structures used in responses and object classes.¶
The data structure named "rdapConformance" is an array of strings, each providing a hint as to the specifications used in the construction of the response. This data structure MUST appear in the topmost JSON object of a response and MUST NOT appear anywhere else. A response to a "help" request will include identifiers for all of the specifications supported by the server. A response to any other request will include only identifiers for the specifications used in the construction of the response. The set of returned identifiers MAY vary depending on the authorization level of the client.¶
An example rdapConformance data structure:¶
The string literal "rdap_level_0" signifies conformance with this specification. When custom JSON values are inserted into responses, conformance to those custom specifications 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 signify that their JSON responses are conformant with their registered extensions, the string used might be "lunarNIC_level_0". These registered values aid the identification of specifications for software implementers, and failure to use them could result in slower adoption of extensions.¶
Example rdapConformance structure with custom extensions noted:¶
The "links" array is found in data structures to signify links to other resources on the Internet. The relationship of these links is defined by the IANA registry described by [RFC8288].¶
The following is an example of the link structure:¶
The JSON name/values of "rel", "href", "hreflang", "title", "media", and "type" correspond to values found in Section 3 of [RFC8288]. The "value" JSON value is the context URI as described by [RFC8288]. The "value", "rel", and "href" JSON values MUST be specified. All other JSON values are OPTIONAL. A "related" link relation MUST NOT include an "href" URI that is the same as the "self" link relation "href" URI to reduce the risk of infinite client processing loops. Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) returned in URIs SHOULD be consistently returned in LDH name format to allow clients to process these IDNs according to their capabilities.¶
This is an example of the "links" array as it might be found in an object class:¶
The "notices" and "remarks" data structures take the same form. The notices structure denotes information about the service providing RDAP information and/or information about the entire response, whereas the remarks structure denotes information about the object class that contains it (see Section 5 regarding object classes).¶
Both are arrays of objects. Each object contains a "title" string representing the title of the object, a "type" string denoting a registered type of remark or notice (see Section 10.2.1), an array of strings named "description" for the purposes of conveying any descriptive text, and a "links" array as described in Section 4.2. The "description" array MUST be included. All other JSON values are OPTIONAL.¶
An example of the notices data structure:¶
It is the job of the clients to determine line breaks, spacing, and display issues for sentences within the character strings of the "description" array. Each string in the "description" array contains a single complete division of human-readable text indicating to clients where there are semantic breaks.¶
An example of the remarks data structure:¶
Note that objects in the "remarks" array may also have a "links" array.¶
While the "title" and "description" fields are intended primarily for human consumption, the "type" string contains a well-known value to be registered with IANA (see Section 10.2.1) for programmatic use.¶
An example of the remarks data structure:¶
While the "remarks" array will appear in many object classes in a response, the "notices" array appears only in the topmost object of a response.¶
This data structure consists solely of a name/value pair, where the name is "lang" and the value is a string containing a language identifier as described in [RFC5646].¶
The "lang" attribute as defined in this section MAY appear anywhere in an object class or data structure, except for in jCard objects. vCard supports similar functionality by way of the LANGUAGE property parameter (see Section 5.1 of RFC 6350 [RFC6350]).¶
This data structure represents events that have occurred on an instance of an object class (see Section 5 regarding object classes).¶
This is an example of an "events" array.¶
The "events" array consists of objects, each with the following members:¶
Events can be future dated. One use case for future dating of events is to denote when an object expires from a registry.¶
The "links" array in this data structure is provided for references to the event actor. In order to reference an RDAP entity, a "rel" of "related" and a "type" of "application/rdap+json" is used in the link reference.¶
See Section 10.2.3 for a list of values for the "eventAction" string. See Appendix B regarding the various ways events can be modeled.¶
This data structure, named "status", is an array of strings indicating the state of a registered object (see Section 10.2.2 for a list of values).¶
This data structure, a member named "port43", is a simple character string containing the fully qualified host name or IP address of the WHOIS [RFC3912] server where the containing object instance may be found. Note that this is not a URI, as there is no WHOIS URI scheme.¶
This data structure maps a public identifier to an object class. It is named "publicIds" and is an array of objects, with each object containing the following REQUIRED members:¶
The following is an example of a publicIds structure.¶
This data structure, a member named "objectClassName", gives the object class name of a particular object as a string. This identifies the type of object being processed. An objectClassName is REQUIRED in all RDAP response objects so that the type of the object can be interpreted.¶
This is an example response with both rdapConformance and notices embedded:¶
Object classes represent structures appropriate for a response from the queries specified in [RFC9082].¶
Each object class contains a "links" array as specified in Section 4.2. For every object class instance in a response, whether the object class instance is directly representing the response to a query or is embedded in other object class instances or is an item in a search result set, servers SHOULD provide a link representing a URI for that object class 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 present, clients can use the self link for caching data. Servers MAY provide more than one self link for any given object instance. Failure to provide any self link by a server may result in clients being 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 than the authority of the server returning the data. Failing to do so might result in cache poisoning.¶
Self links MUST contain a "type" element containing the "application/rdap+json" media type when referencing RDAP object instances as defined by this document.¶
This is an example of the "links" array with a self link to an object class:¶
The entity object class appears throughout this document and is an appropriate response for the /entity/XXXX query defined in "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format" [RFC9082]. This object class represents the information of organizations, corporations, governments, non-profits, clubs, individual persons, and informal groups of people. All of these representations are so similar that it is best to represent them in JSON [RFC8259] with one construct, the entity object class, to aid in the reuse of code by implementers.¶
The entity object class uses jCard [RFC7095] to represent contact information, such as postal addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and names of organizations and individuals. Many of the types of information that can be represented with jCard have little or no use in RDAP, such as birthdays, anniversaries, and gender.¶
The entity object is served by both RIRs and DNRs. The following is an example of an entity that might be served by an RIR.¶
The entity object class can contain the following members:¶
Entities may also have other entities embedded with them in an array. This can be used to model an organization with specific individuals fulfilling designated roles of responsibility.¶
The following is an elided example of an entity with embedded entities.¶
The following is an example of an entity that might be served by a DNR.¶
See Appendix A for use of the entity object class to model various types of entities found in both RIRs and DNRs. See Appendix C regarding structured vs. unstructured postal addresses in entities.¶
The nameserver object class represents information regarding DNS nameservers used in both forward and reverse DNS. RIRs and some DNRs register or expose nameserver information as an attribute of a domain name, while other DNRs model nameservers as "first class objects". Please note that some of the examples in this section include lines that have been wrapped for reading clarity.¶
The nameserver object class accommodates both models and degrees of variation in between.¶
The following is an example of a nameserver object.¶
Figure 18 is an example of a nameserver object with all appropriate values given. Registries using a first-class nameserver data model would embed this in domain objects as well as allowing references to it with the "/nameserver" query type (all depending on the registry operators policy). Other registries may pare back the information as needed. Figure 19 is an example of a nameserver object as would be found in RIRs and some DNRs, while Figure 20 is an example of a nameserver object as would be found in other DNRs.¶
The following is an example of the simplest nameserver object:¶
The following is an example of a simple nameserver object that might be commonly used by DNRs:¶
As nameservers can be modeled by some registries to be first-class objects, they may also have an array of entities (Section 5.1) embedded to signify parties responsible for the maintenance, registrations, etc., of the nameservers.¶
The following is an elided example of a nameserver with embedded entities.¶
The nameserver object class can contain the following members:¶
ipAddresses -- an object containing the following members:¶
The domain object class represents a DNS name and point of delegation. For RIRs, these delegation points are in the reverse DNS tree, whereas for DNRs, these delegation points are in the forward DNS tree.¶
In both cases, the high-level structure of the domain object class consists of information about the domain registration, nameserver information related to the domain name, and entities related to the domain name (e.g., registrant information, contacts, etc.).¶
The following is an elided example of the domain object showing the high-level structure:¶
The domain object class can contain the following members:¶
variants -- an array of objects, each containing the following values:¶
secureDNS -- an object with the following members:¶
dsData -- an array of objects, each with the following members:¶
keyData -- an array of objects, each with the following members:¶
links -- see Section 4.2¶
See Appendix D for background information on these objects.¶
The following is an example of a JSON domain object representing a reverse DNS delegation point that might be served by an RIR (note that the dsData digest value has been modified to fit on one line).¶
The following is an example of a JSON domain object representing a forward DNS delegation point that might be served by a DNR. Note that the secureDNS keyData publicKey value has been modified to fit on a single line.¶
The IP network object class models IP network registrations found in RIRs and is the expected response for the "/ip" query as defined by [RFC9082]. There is no equivalent object class for DNRs. The high- level structure of the IP network object class consists of information about the network registration and entities related to the IP network (e.g., registrant information, contacts, etc.).¶
The following is an elided example of the IP network object type showing the high-level structure:¶
The following is an example of the JSON object for the network registration information.¶
The IP network object class can contain the following members:¶
The Autonomous System number (autnum) object class models Autonomous System number registrations found in RIRs and represents the expected response to an "/autnum" query as defined by [RFC9082]. There is no equivalent object class for DNRs. The high-level structure of the autnum object class consists of information about the Autonomous System number registration and entities related to the autnum registration (e.g., registrant information, contacts, etc.) and is similar to the IP network object class.¶
The following is an example of a JSON object representing an autnum.¶
The Autonomous System number object class can contain the following members:¶
Some non-answer responses MAY return entity bodies with information that could be more descriptive.¶
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".¶
This is an example of the common response body.¶
This is an example of the common response body with an rdapConformance and notices data structures:¶
The appropriate response to /help queries as defined by [RFC9082] is to use the notices structure as defined in Section 4.3.¶
This is an example of a response to a /help query including the rdapConformance data structure.¶
[RFC9082] specifies three types of searches: domains, nameservers, and entities. Responses to these searches take the form of an array of object instances where each instance is an appropriate object class for the search (i.e., a search for /domains yields an array of domain object instances). These arrays are contained within the response object.¶
The names of the arrays are as follows:¶
The following is an elided example of a response to a /domains search.¶
In cases where the data of a response needs to be limited or parts of the data need to be omitted, the response is considered "truncated". A truncated response is still valid JSON, but some of the results in a search set or some of the data in an object are not provided by the server. A server may indicate this by including a typed notice in the response object.¶
The following is an elided example of a search response that has been truncated.¶
A similar technique can be used with a typed remark where a single object has been returned and data in that object has been truncated. Such an example might be an entity object with only a partial set of the IP networks associated with it.¶
The following is an elided example of an entity truncated data.¶
IANA has updated the description of the "transfer" event action as described in Section 10.2.3.¶
IANA has updated the media type registration as described below.¶
This specification registers the "application/rdap+json" media type.¶
IANA has created a category in the protocol registries labeled "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", and within that category, IANA has established a URL-referenceable, stand-alone registry labeled "RDAP JSON Values". This new registry is for use in 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 specified in RDAP.¶
Each entry in the registry contains the following fields:¶
Type -- the type of value being registered. It should be one of the following:¶
This registry is operated under the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC8126].¶
Review of registrations into this registry by the designated expert(s) should be narrowly judged on the following criteria:¶
The following sections provide initial registrations into this registry.¶
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry:¶
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry:¶
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry:¶
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry:¶
The following values have been registered in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry:¶
This specification models information serialized in JSON format. As JSON is a subset of JavaScript, implementations are advised to follow the security considerations outlined in Section 12 of [RFC8259] to prevent code injection.¶
Though not specific to JSON, RDAP implementers should be aware of the security considerations specified in [RFC7480] and the security requirements and considerations in [RFC7481].¶
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 that 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.¶
The default text encoding for JSON responses in RDAP is UTF-8 [RFC3629], and all servers and clients MUST support UTF-8.¶
Section 4.4 defines the use of language tags in the JSON responses defined in this document.¶
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.¶
This specification suggests status values to denote contact and registrant information that has been marked as private and/or has been removed or obscured. See Section 10.2.2 for the complete list of status values. A few of the status values indicate that there are privacy concerns associated with the object instance. The following status codes SHOULD be used to describe data elements of a response when appropriate:¶
See Appendix A.1 for an example of applying those values to contacts and registrants.¶
This document does not provide specific object classes for registrants and contacts. Instead, the entity object class may be used to represent a registrant or contact. When the entity object is embedded inside a containing object such as a domain name or IP network, the "roles" string array can be used to signify the relationship. It is recommended that the values from Section 10.2.4 be used.¶
The following is an example of an elided containing object with an embedded entity that is both a registrant and administrative contact:¶
In many use cases, it is necessary to hide or obscure the information of a registrant or contact due to policy or other operational matters. Registries can denote these situations with "status" values (see Section 10.2.2).¶
The following is an elided example of a registrant with information changed to reflect that of a third party.¶
This document does not provide a specific object class for registrars, but like registrants and contacts (see Appendix A.1), the "roles" string array maybe used. Additionally, many registrars have publicly assigned identifiers. The publicIds structure (Section 4.8) represents that information.¶
The following is an example of an elided containing object with an embedded entity that is a registrar:¶
Events represent actions that have taken place against a registered object at a certain date and time. Events have three properties: the action, the actor, and the date and time of the event (which is sometimes in the future). In some cases, the identity of the actor is not captured.¶
Events can be modeled in three ways:¶
For the first use case, the events data structure (Section 4.5) is used without the "eventActor" object member.¶
This is an example of an "events" array without the "eventActor".¶
For the second use case, the events data structure (Section 4.5) is used with the "eventActor" object member.¶
This is an example of an "events" array with the "eventActor".¶
For the third use case, the "asEventActor" array is used when an entity (Section 5.1) is embedded into another object class. The "asEventActor" array follows the same structure as the "events" array but does not have "eventActor" attributes.¶
The following is an elided example of a domain object with an entity as an event actor.¶
The entity (Section 5.1) object class uses jCard [RFC7095] to represent contact information, including postal addresses. jCard has the ability to represent multiple language preferences, multiple email address and phone numbers, and multiple postal addresses in both a structured and unstructured format. This section describes the use of jCard for representing structured and unstructured addresses.¶
The following is an example of a jCard.¶
The arrays in Figure 40 with the first member of "adr" represent postal addresses. In the first example, the postal address is given as an array of strings and constitutes a structured address. For components of the structured address that are not applicable, an empty string is given. Each member of that array aligns with the positions of a vCard as given in [RFC6350]. In this example, the following data corresponds to the following positional meanings:¶
The second example is an unstructured address. It uses the "label" attribute, which is a string containing a newline (\n) character to separate address components in an unordered, unspecified manner. Note that in this example, the structured address array is still given but that each string is an empty string.¶
Section 5.3 defines the "secureDNS" member to represent secure DNS information about domain names.¶
DNSSEC provides data integrity for DNS through the digital signing of resource records. To enable DNSSEC, the zone is signed by one or more private keys and the signatures are stored as RRSIG records. To complete the chain of trust in the DNS zone hierarchy, a digest of each DNSKEY record (which contains the public key) must be loaded into the parent zone, stored as DS records, and signed by the parent's private key (RRSIG DS record), as indicated in "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions" [RFC4034]. Creating the DS records in the parent zone can be done by the registration authority "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)" [RFC5910].¶
Only DS-related information is provided by RDAP, since other information is not generally stored in the registration database. Other DNSSEC-related information can be retrieved with other DNS tools such as 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 do not collect or do not publish all of the secure DNS meta-information.¶
This section addresses a common question regarding the use of JSON over other data formats, most notably XML.¶
It is often pointed out that many DNRs and one RIR support the EPP [RFC5730] standard, which is an XML serialized protocol. The logic is that since EPP is a common protocol in the industry, it follows that XML would be a more natural choice. While EPP does influence this specification quite a bit, EPP serves a different purpose, which is the provisioning of Internet resources between registries and accredited registrars and serving a much narrower audience than that envisioned for RDAP.¶
By contrast, RDAP has a broader audience and is designed for public consumption of data. Experience from RIRs with first generation RESTful web services for WHOIS indicate that a large percentage of clients operate within browsers and other platforms where full-blown XML stacks are not readily available and where JSON is a better fit.¶
Additionally, while EPP is used in much of the DNR community it is not a universal constant in that industry. And finally, EPP's use of XML predates the specification of JSON. If EPP had been defined today, it may very well have used JSON instead of XML.¶
Beyond the specific DNR and RIR communities, the trend in the broader Internet industry is also switching to JSON over XML, especially in the area of RESTful web services (see [JSON_ascendancy]). Studies have also found that JSON is generally less bulky and consequently faster to parse (see [JSON_performance_study]).¶
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.¶