Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse search capabilities

Status of This Memo

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 6 April 2023.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2022 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.¶

Table of Contents

2. RDAP Path Segment Specification

A generic reverse search path is described by the syntax:¶

{searchable-resource-type}/reverse_search/{related-resource-type}?<search-condition>¶

The path segments are defined as in the following:¶

• searchable-resource-type: it MUST be one of the resource types for search defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9082] (i.e. "domains", "nameservers" and "entities") or a resource type extension;¶

• related-resource-type: it MUST be one of the resource types for lookup defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC9082] (i.e. "domain", "nameserver", "entity", "ip" and "autnum") or a resource type extension;¶

• search-condition: a sequence of "property=search pattern" predicates separated by the ampersand character ('&', US-ASCII value 0x0026). Each "property" represents a JSON object property of the RDAP object class corresponding to "related-resource-type". Objects are only included in the search results if they satisfy all included predicates. This includes predicates that are for the same property: it is necessary in such a case for the related object to match against each of those predicates. Based on their policy, servers MAY restrict the usage of predicates to make a valid search condition, by returning a 400 (Bad Request) response when a problematic request is received.¶

While related-resource-type is defined as having one of a number of different values, the only reverse searches defined in this document are for a related-resource-type of "entity". Reverse searches for the other resource types specified in [RFC9082] and resource type extensions may be defined by future documents.¶

Partial string matching in search patterns is allowed as defined in section 4.1 of [RFC9082].¶

3. RDAP Response Specification

Reverse search responses use the formats defined in section 8 of [RFC9083], which correspond to the searchable resource types defined in Section 2.¶

4. Reverse Searches Based on Entity Details

Since in RDAP, an entity can be associated with any other object class, the most common kind of reverse search is one based on an entity's details. Such reverse searches arise from the query model by setting the related resource type to "entity".¶

By selecting a specific searchable resource type, the resulting reverse search aims at retrieving all the objects (e.g. all the domains) that are related to any entity object matching the search conditions.¶

This section defines the reverse search properties servers SHOULD support for the domain, nameserver, and entity searchable resource types:¶

Reverse search property:

role¶

RDAP property:

$..entities[*].roles¶

Reference:

Section 10.2.4 of [RFC9083]¶

Reverse search property:

handle¶

RDAP property:

$..entities[*].handle¶

Reference:

Section 5.1 of [RFC9083]¶

Reverse search property:

fn¶

RDAP property:

$..entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]¶

Reference:

Section 6.2.1 of [RFC6350]¶

Reverse search property:

email¶

RDAP property:

$..entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')][3]¶

Reference:

Section 6.4.2 of [RFC6350]¶

The mapping between the reverse search property and the corresponding RDAP response property is done through the use of a JSONPath expression [I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base].¶

The presence of a predicate on the reverse search property "role" means that the RDAP response property "roles" must contain at least the specified role.¶

The last two properties are related to jCard elements [RFC7095], but the field references are to vCard [RFC6350], since jCard is the JSON format for vCard.¶

Examples of reverse search paths based on the domain-entity relationship are presented in Figure 1.¶

 /domains/reverse_search/entity?handle=CID-40*&role=technical

 /domains/reverse_search/entity?fn=Bobby*&role=registrant

 /domains/reverse_search/entity?handle=RegistrarX&role=registrar

Documents that deprecate or restructure RDAP responses such that one or more of the properties listed above becomes invalid MUST either note that the relevant reverse search is no longer available (in the case of deprecation) or describe how to continue supporting the relevant search by way of some new RDAP property (in the case of restructuring).¶

A server that includes additional fields in its objects in accordance with the extensibility provisions of section 6 of [RFC7480] MAY support the use of those fields in search conditions, in the same way as for the search conditions defined in this section. Support for such fields in the reverse search context MUST be documented in the extension specification.¶

5. RDAP Conformance

Servers complying with this specification MUST include the value "reverse_search" in the rdapConformance property of the help response [RFC9083]. The information needed to register this value in the "RDAP Extensions" registry is described in Section 8.¶

6. Implementation Considerations

To limit the impact of processing the search predicates, servers are RECOMMENDED to make use of techniques to speed up the data retrieval in their underlying data store such as indexes or similar. In addition, risks with respect to performance degradation or result set generation can be mitigated by adopting practices used for standard searches, e.g. restricting the search functionality, limiting the rate of search requests according to the user's authorization, truncating and paging the results [RFC8977], and returning partial responses [RFC8982].¶

7. Implementation Status

NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior to publication as an RFC.¶

This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.¶

According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".¶

8. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP Extensions Registry:¶

• Extension identifier: reverse_search¶

• Registry operator: Any¶

• Published specification: This document.¶

• Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>¶

• Intended usage: This extension identifier is used for reverse search URI path segments.¶

9. Privacy Considerations

The search functionality defined in this document may affect the privacy of entities in the registry (and elsewhere) in various ways: see [RFC6973] for a general treatment of privacy in protocol specifications. Registry operators should be aware of the tradeoffs that result from implementation of this functionality.¶

Many jurisdictions have laws or regulations that restrict the use of "Personal Data", per the definition in [RFC6973]. Given that, registry operators should ascertain whether the regulatory environment in which they operate permits implementation of the functionality defined in this document.¶

In general, given the sensitivity of this functionality, it SHOULD be accessible to authorized users only, and for specific use cases only.¶

Since reverse search requests and responses could contain Personally Identifiable Information (PII), reverse search functionality SHOULD be available over HTTPS only.¶

Providing reverse search in RDAP carries the following threats as described in [RFC6973]:¶

• Correlation¶
• Disclosure¶
• Misuse of information¶

Therefore, RDAP providers are REQUIRED to mitigate the risk of those threats by implementing appropriate measures supported by security services (see Section 10).¶

10. Security Considerations

Security services required to provide controlled access to the operations specified in this document are described in [RFC7481]. A non-exhaustive list of access control paradigms an RDAP provider can implement is presented in Appendix A.¶

The specification of the relationship within the reverse search path allows the RDAP servers to implement different authorization policies on a per-relationship basis.¶

Appendix A. Paradigms to Enforce Access Control on Reverse Search in RDAP

Access control can be implemented according to different paradigms introducing increasingly stringent rules. The paradigms reported here in the following leverage the capabilities either supported natively or provided as extensions by the OpenID Connect [OIDCC]:¶

• Role-Based Access Control: access rights are granted depending on roles. Generally, this is done by grouping users into fixed categories and assigning static grants to each category. A more dynamic approach can be implemented by using the OpenID Connect "scope" claim;¶

• Purpose-Based Access Control: access rules are based on the notion of purpose, being the intended use of some data by a user. It can be implemented by tagging a request with the usage purpose and making the RDAP server check the compliance between the given purpose and the control rules applied to the data to be returned. The purpose can be stated within an out-of-band process by setting the OpenID Connect RDAP-specific "purpose" claim as defined in [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-openid];¶

• Attribute-Based Access Control: rules to manage access rights are evaluated and applied according to specific attributes describing the context within which data are requested. It can be implemented by setting within an out-of-band process additional OpenID Connect claims describing the request context and making the RDAP server check the compliance between the given context and the control rules applied to the data to be returned;¶

• Time-Based Access Control: data access is allowed for a limited time only. It can be implemented by assigning the users with temporary credentials linked to access grants whose scope is limited.¶

Authors' Addresses