Internet-Draft | Versioning in RDAP | December 2023 |
Gould, et al. | Expires 10 June 2024 | [Page] |
This document describes an RDAP extension for an extensible set of versioning types with the features of identifying the RDAP extension versions supported by the server, the RDAP extension versions included in an RDAP response, and enabling a client to specify the desired RDAP extension versions to include in the RDAP query and RDAP response.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 June 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
RDAP supports identifying the RDAP extensions included in an RDAP response using the RDAP Conformance data structure, defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC9083]. The RDAP Conformance values are identifiers with no standard mechanism to support structured, machine-parseable version signaling by the server. This document describes an RDAP extension for an extensible set of versioning types, with the pre-defined versioning types of Opaque Versioning (Section 4.1) and Semantic Versioning (Section 4.2), that have the following features:¶
There are two predefined versioning types that include:¶
The versioning types are registered in the JSON Values Registry, where new versioning types can be defined and registered in the future. The specification of a versioning type defines how the base set of features of the versioning extension are used for the versioning type.¶
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 extension includes a base set of features that can be used for any defined versioning type. The features enable the client to discover what extension versions is supported by the server, enable the client to specify what extension versions are desired in an RDAP query and RDAP response, and provide the extension versions included in the RDAP response by the server. Examples are provided using the two predefined versioning types in Section 4. The format of the Extension Version Indentifier (Section 3.1) is general enough to support a broad range of future versioning types.¶
The Extension Version Identifier adds support for versioning to the Extension Identifer in [RFC7480] that is returned in the RDAP Conformance data structure of [RFC9083]. Each versioning type will define the scheme and the meaning of the "versioning" Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) grammar [RFC5234] rule. The Extension Version Identifier is used to uniquely identify a version of an RDAP extension in the Extension Versioning Request (Section 3.2), the members of the "versioning-help" Member (Section 3.2.4), and the members of the "versioning" Member (Section 3.2.5).¶
Example Extension Version Identifiers:¶
The client MAY provide an Extension Versioning Request to indicate the desired extension versions to include in the RDAP query and RDAP response. There are two Extension Versioning Request methods with the Versioning Query Parameter (Section 3.2.1) and the Versioning Extensions Media Type Parameter (Section 3.2.2). The server MUST support both methods of Extension Versioning Request methods and the client MUST use at most a single Extension Versioning Request method in the RDAP query.¶
The Extension Versioning Request provides a hint from the client what extension versions to include in the RDAP query by the client and RDAP response by the server. It is up to server policy what extension versions to support in the RDAP query and the extension versions to include in the RDAP response, based on the supported set of extensions, the default extension versions, and the hint provided by the client using the Extension Versioning Request.¶
The "versioning" query parameter MAY be used with RDAP queries to specify the RDAP extension versions to include in the RDAP query and the RDAP response. The "versioning" query parameter is a list of one or more Extension Version Identifiers, as defined in Section 3.1, seperated by commas. The ABNF format for the "versioning" query parameter, using the "extension-version-identifier" rule from Figure 1, is:¶
Example RDAP queries using the "versioning" query parameter:¶
The Extensions Media Type Parameter [I-D.newton-regext-rdap-x-media-type] MAY be used with RDAP queries to specify the RDAP extension versions to include in the RDAP query and the RDAP response. The RDAP extensions included in the "extensions" parameter are Extension Version Identifiers, as defined in Section 3.1. The "extensions" Versioning Extensions Type Parameter is a list of one or more Extension Version Identifiers, as defined in Section 3.1, seperated by whitespace (%x20). The use of the "-" character in the Extension Version Identifier ABNF (Figure 1) ensures that an Extension Version Identifier with a non-empty "versioning" ABNF rule will not conflict with an Extension Identifier. The ABNF format for the "extensions" parameter, using the "extension-version-identifier" rule from Figure 1, is:¶
Example Versioning Extensions Media Type Parameter values:¶
RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST indicate conformance with this specification by including an "rdapConformance" ([RFC9083]) value of "versioning". The "versioning" extension identifier is described in Section 7.1.¶
Example "rdapConformance" member with the versioning extension:¶
The "versioning-help" member MUST be added to the response of a /help query, defined in [RFC9082], to indicate the extension versions that are supported by the server. This extends the information provided by the guidance in Section 7 of [I-D.newton-regext-rdap-extensions], with inclusion of the all supported extension identifiers in the RDAP Conformance to the response of a /help query. The "versioning-help" member contains an array of extension objects with the following child members:¶
An array of extension version objects with the following child members:¶
OPTIONAL "links" array to extension version documentation. The relationship of these links is defined by the IANA registry described in [RFC8288]. The JSON name/values of "rel", "href", "hreflang", "title", "media", and "type" correspond to values found in Section 3 of [RFC8288]. The "value", "rel", and "href" JSON values MUST be specified. All other JSON values are OPTIONAL.¶
Example "links" member for the "ext2-0.1" extension version identifier:¶
Example response to /help query with "versioning-help" and "versioning" members and no client specified versioning in the /help query "https://example.com/rdap/help":¶
Example response to /help query with the "versioning-help" and "versioning" members and client specified "versioning-0.1" extension version in the /help query "https://example.com/rdap/help?versioning=versioning-0.1". The "versioning-0.1" extension version does not include support for the "type" member.¶
The "versioning" member MUST be added to the RDAP response when there is one or more RDAP extension fields. The "versioning" member is included as a member of the object class in a lookup response, such as the object classes defined in [RFC9083], and as a member of the object instances in a search response, such as the object instances defined in [RFC9083], and as a member of the response to a /help query, such as shown in Response to /help Query with No Client Specified Versioning (Figure 6). The "versioning" member contains an array of versioning objects with the following child members:¶
Example domain lookup response with "versioning" member and no client specified versioning in the lookup query "https://example.com/rdap/domain/versioning.example":¶
Example domain lookup response with "versioning" member and client specified "semantic_ext1-0.1" extension version in the lookup query "https://example.com/rdap/domain/versioning.example?versioning=semantic_ext1-0.1":¶
Example domain lookup response with "versioning" member and client specified "semantic_ext1-0.1" and "opaque_ext2" extension versions in the lookup query "https://example.com/rdap/domain/versioning.example?versioning=semantic_ext1-0.1,opaque_ext2":¶
Versioning types are extensible by formally defining the extension version identifer, how the versioning type is represented in the "versioning-help" member (Section 3.2.4), and how the versioning type is represented in the "versioning" member (Section 3.2.4). The definition of the extension version identifier determines how the versioning type is represented in the Extension Versioning Request (Section 3.2). Each versioning type needs to have a unique "versioning" RDAP JSON Values Registry Type field value. This document pre-defines two versioning types with Opaque Versioning (Section 4.1) and Semantic Versioning (Section 4.2). Other versioning types can be defined and registered in the RDAP JSON Values Registry.¶
Opaque Versioning is defined in Section 8 of [I-D.newton-regext-rdap-extensions], to support RDAP extensions that are identified using the Extension Identifier included in the RDAP Conformance and is the base versioning type that can be applied to any RDAP extension. All RDAP extensions are registered in the RDAP Extensions Registry using the Extension Identifier in [RFC7480], which is the basis for other versioning types. An RDAP Extension that supports another versioning type, such as the Semantic Versioning (Section 4.2), MAY be referred to using Opaque Versioning in the Extension Versioning Request (Section 3.2) and the server returns the extension version with the "default" (Section 3.2.4) member set to true.¶
The Opaque Versioning Identifier directly matches the Extension Identifier registered in the RDAP Extensions Registry. The ABNF for the Extension Identifier is defined in "Figure 1: ABNF for JSON Names" of [RFC7480].¶
Example Opaque Extension Versioning Identifiers:¶
For an RDAP extension that only supports Opaque Extension Versioning, there is only a single extension version. All of the members of the "versioning-help" member (Section 3.2.4) is supported wth Opaque Versioning, but there will be only a single "versions" member object that has the "version" member matching the "extension" member value. Clients can leverage the Extension Version Identifier value in the Extension Versioning Request (Section 3.2) for Opaque Versioning.¶
Example response to /help query with "versioning-help" and "versioning" members with support for only Opaque Versioning in the /help query "https://example.com/rdap/help":¶
All of the members of the "versioning" member (Section 3.2.5) is supported wth Opaque Versioning, where the "extension" and "version" member are both set with the Extension Identifier and the "type" is set to "opaque". The Response to /help Query with only Opaque Versioning (Figure 12) includes an example of of the "versioning" extension represented using Opaque Versioning.¶
The Semantic Versioning uses a subset of the Semantic Versioning [SemVer] rules, where the patch version, pre-release version, and build metadata are not used. RDAP versioning is only associated with changes to the protocol interface that is the public API of [SemVer], so there is no concept of patching, pre-release, and build metadata information. Only the [SemVer] major version and minor version are used for Extension Versioning, and is based on the stability of the extension as opposed to backward compatibility. The RDAP extension given a version number MAJOR.MINOR, increment the:¶
The following are the Extension Versioning rules based on modifications to the Semantic Versioning [SemVer] rules:¶
Precedence refers to how versions are compared to each other when ordered.¶
The Semantic Versioning Identifier defines the versioning ABNF rule in Extension Version Identifier ABNF (Figure 1) to include the major and minor version of the extension that follows the modified Semantic Versioning [SemVer] rules.¶
Example Semantic Extension Versioning Identifiers:¶
For an RDAP extension that supports Semantic Extension Versioning, there can be many Extension Versioning Identifiers associated with the Extension Identifier, so the "versions" member of the "versioning-help" member can include a list of more than one extension version object. All of the members of the "versioning-help" member (Section 3.2.4) is supported wth Semantic Versioning.¶
Example response to /help query with "versioning-help" and "versioning" members with support for Semantic Versioning in the /help query "https://example.com/rdap/help":¶
All of the members of the "versioning" member (Section 3.2.5) is supported wth Semantic Versioning, where the "extension" member is set with the Extension Identifier, the "version" member of the extension included in the response is set with Semantic Extension Version Identifier (Section 4.2.1), and the "type" is set to "semantic". The Response to /help Query with only Semantic Versioning (Figure 14) includes an example of of the "versioning" extension represented using Semantic Versioning with "versioning-0.2".¶
This section covers considerations for extensions that support the versioning extension and for defining new versioning types.¶
All extensions support Opaque Versioning (Section 4.1) by default and MAY support other forms for versioning types, such as the Semantic Versioning (Section 4.2). The following are considerations for the extensions an servers that support the versioning extension:¶
The following are considerations for the definition of new versioning types in a Versioning Type Specification. The Opaque Versioning (Section 4.1) and Semantic Versioning (Section 4.2) with the associated RDAP JSON Values Registry (Section 7.2) registrations are concrete examples of a Versioning Type Specification. The Versioning Type Specification MUST include the following:¶
This extension supports the following versioning types:¶
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP Extensions Registry:¶
Section 10.2 of [RFC9083] defines the RDAP JSON Values Registry with pre-defined Type field values and the use of the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC8126]. This specification defines a new "versioning" RDAP JSON Values Registry Type field value that can be used to register pre-defined versioning types values. The registered "versioning" value is referenced using the "type" field of the "versioning" field (Section 3.2.5) or "versioning-help" field object (Section 3.2.4). IANA is instructed to update the RDAP JSON Values Registry to accept the additional "versioning" type field values.¶
The following values should be registered by the IANA in the RDAP JSON Values Registry described in [RFC9083]:¶
The RDAP extensions available to clients can be subject to server disclosure and authorization policies. Inclusion of available RDAP extensions and their available versions in the "versioning-help" member, defined in Section 3.2.4, of the RDAP help response and inclusion of the RDAP extensions in the RDAP response with the "versioning" member, defined in Section 3.2.5, can be dependent on authentication and authorization of the client by the server.¶
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback and suggestions: Scott Hollenbeck, Andy Newton, and Jasdip Singh.¶
Restructure the draft to support the features of providing versioning meta-data in the help response, providing extension versioning information in the query response, and provide the ability for the client to specify the desired set of extension versions in the query with an extensible set of versioning types. The following changes apply:¶