Registration Protocols Extensions (regext) J. Singh Internet-Draft ARIN Intended status: Standards Track T. Harrison Expires: 18 October 2025 APNIC 16 April 2025 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed Data draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-10 Abstract This document defines a new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects. It also defines a new media type and a new link relation type for the associated link objects included in responses. 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 18 October 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Media Type for a Geofeed Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Geofeed Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Extension Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Link Relations Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.3. Media Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4. Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. RIPE NCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Introduction [RFC8805] and [RFC9632] detail the IP geolocation feed (commonly known as 'geofeed') file format and associated access mechanisms. This document specifies how geofeed URLs can be accessed through RDAP. It defines a new RDAP extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects, as well as a new media type and a new link relation type for the associated link objects. Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 1.1. Requirements Language 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. Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships, and are not a REQUIRED feature of this specification. "..." in examples is used as shorthand for elements defined outside of this document. 2. Specification 2.1. Media Type for a Geofeed Link [RFC9632] requires a geofeed file to be a UTF-8 [RFC3629] comma- separated values (CSV) file, with a series of "#" comments at the end for the optional Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI, [RFC6480]) signature. At first glance, the "text/csv" media type seems like a good candidate for a geofeed file, since it supports the "#" comments needed for including the RPKI signature. However, although the CSV geofeed data could be viewed directly by a user such that the "text/csv" media type was appropriate, the most common use case will involve it being processed by some sort of application first, in order to facilitate subsequent IP address lookup operations. Therefore, using a new "application" media type with a "geofeed" subtype (Section 4.2.5 of [RFC6838]) for the geofeed data is preferable to using "text/csv". To that end, this document registers a new "application/geofeed+csv" media type in the IANA Media Types Registry (see Section 6.3), and a new "+csv" suffix in the IANA Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry (see Section 6.4). 2.2. Geofeed Link An RDAP server that hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects (Section 5.4 of [RFC9083]) may include link objects for those geofeed URLs in IP network objects in its responses. These link objects are added to the "links" member of each object (Section 4.2 of [RFC9083]). Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 In RDAP, the "value", "rel", and "href" JSON members are required for any link object. Additionally, for a geofeed link object, the "type" JSON member is RECOMMENDED. The geofeed-specific components of a link object are like so: * "rel" -- The link relation type is set to "geofeed". This is a new link relation type for IP geolocation feed data, registered in the IANA Link Relations Registry (see Section 6.2) by this document. * "href" -- The target URL is set to the HTTPS URL of the geofeed file (Section 6 of [RFC9632]) for an IP network. * "type" -- "application/geofeed+csv" (see Section 2.1). An IP network object returned by an RDAP server MAY contain zero or more geofeed link objects, though typically an IP network will have either no such link objects or only one. The scenario where more than one geofeed link object could be returned is when the server is able to represent that data in multiple languages. In such a case, the server SHOULD provide "hreflang" members for the geofeed link objects. Except for the multiple-languages scenario, the server MUST NOT return more than one geofeed link object. 2.3. Extension Identifier This document defines a new extension identifier, "geofeed1", for use by servers that host geofeed URLs for their IP network objects and include geofeed URL link objects in their responses to clients in accordance with Section 2.2. A server that uses this extension identifier MUST include it in the "rdapConformance" array (Section 4.1 of [RFC9083]) for any lookup or search response containing an IP network object, as well as in the help response. Here is an elided example for this inclusion: { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", "geofeed1", ... ], ... } If the server includes "geofeed1" in the "rdapConformance" array, then for any response concerning a particular IP network object for which the server possesses a geofeed URL and is able to return it to the client, the server MUST include a corresponding geofeed link object in the response. An RDAP server may make use of the "application/geofeed+csv" media type and the "geofeed" link relation defined in this specification in its responses without including the "geofeed1" extension identifier in those responses, because RDAP servers are free to use any Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 registered media type or link relation in a standard response (without implementing any particular extension). The additional value of including the extension identifier in the "rdapConformance" array is that it signals to the client that the server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects. This is useful where a client receives an IP network object without a geofeed link object, because in that case the client can infer that no geofeed data is available for that object, since the server would have provided it if it were available. Although a server may use registered media types in its link objects without any restrictions, it is useful to define new RDAP extensions for those media types in order for the server to communicate to clients that it will make data for that type accessible, in the same way that the server does with the "geofeed1" extension identifier. 2.4. Example The following is an elided example of an IP network object with a geofeed link object: Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 { "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" ], "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": "geofeed", "href": "https://example.com/geofeed", "type": "application/geofeed+csv" }, ... ], ... } 3. Operational Considerations When an RDAP client performs an IP network lookup, per Section 3.1.1 of [RFC9082], the RDAP server is required to return the most-specific IP network object that covers the IP address range provided by the client. That IP network object may not have an associated geofeed link, but it is possible that a less-specific IP network object does have such a link. Clients attempting to retrieve geofeed data for a given IP address range via RDAP should consider whether to retrieve the parent object for the initial response (and so on, recursively) in the event that the initial response does not contain geofeed data. Conversely, server operators should consider interface options for resource holders in order to support the provisioning of geofeed links for all networks covered by the associated data. It is common for a resource holder to maintain a single geofeed file containing the geofeed data for all of their resources. The resource holder then updates each of their network object registrations to Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 refer to that single geofeed file. As with geofeed references in inetnum objects (per [RFC9632]), clients who find a geofeed link object within an IP network object and opt to retrieve the data from the associated link MUST ignore any entry where the entry's IP address range is outside the IP network object's address range. Section 3.2 of [RFC8805] recommends that consumers of geofeed data verify that the publisher of the data is authoritative for the relevant resources. The RDAP bootstrap process ([RFC9224]) helps clients with this recommendation, since a client following that process will be directed to the RDAP server that is able to make authoritative statements about the disposition of the relevant resources. 4. Privacy Considerations All the privacy considerations from Section 7 of [RFC9632] apply to this document. In particular, the service provider publishing the geofeed file MUST take care to not accidentally expose the location of any individual. 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. 5. Security Considerations [RFC9632] requires an HTTPS URL for a geofeed file. The geofeed file may also contain an RPKI signature, per Section 5 of [RFC9632]. Besides that, this document does not introduce any new security considerations past those already discussed in the RDAP protocol specifications ([RFC7481], [RFC9560]). 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP Extensions Registry at [RDAP-EXTENSIONS]: * Extension identifier: geofeed1 * Registry operator: Any * Published specification: This document. Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 * Contact: IETF, iesg@ietf.org * Intended usage: This extension describes a method to access the IP geolocation feed data through RDAP. 6.2. Link Relations Registry IANA is requested to register the following value in the Link Relations Registry at [LINK-RELATIONS]: * Relation Name: geofeed * Description: Refers to a resource with IP geofeed location information related to the link context. * Reference: This document. 6.3. Media Types Registry IANA is requested to register the following value in the Media Types Registry at [MEDIA-TYPES]: * Type name: application * Subtype name: geofeed+csv * Required parameters: N/A * Optional parameters: "charset" is an optional parameter for "text/ csv", but it is not used for "application/geofeed+csv" because the geofeed content is always in UTF-8 (Section 2.1 of [RFC8805]). * Encoding considerations: See Section 2 of [RFC9632]. * Security considerations: See Section 5 of this document. * Interoperability considerations: There are no known interoperability problems regarding this media format. * Published specification: This document. * Applications that use this media type: Implementations of the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed Data. Furthermore, any application that processes the CSV geofeed data. * 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 [REGEXT]. * Person & email address to contact for further information: REGEXT Working Group, regext@ietf.org * Intended usage: COMMON * Restrictions on usage: None * Authors: Tom Harrison, Jasdip Singh * Author/Change controller: IETF * Provisional Registration: No Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 6.4. Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry IANA is requested to register the following value in the Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry at [STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIXES]: * Name: Comma-Separated Values (CSV) * +suffix: +csv * References: [RFC4180], [RFC7111] * Encoding Considerations: Same as "text/csv". * Interoperability Considerations: Same as "text/csv". * Fragment Identifier Considerations: The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +csv SHOULD be as specified for "text/csv". The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+csv" SHOULD be processed as follows: For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +csv rules, then as specified for +csv. For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +csv rules, then as specified for "xxx/yyy+csv". For cases not defined in +csv, then as specified for "xxx/ yyy+csv". * Security Considerations: Same as "text/csv". * Contact: IETF, iesg@ietf.org * Author/Change controller: IETF 7. Implementation Status (Remove this section before publication.) 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 Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 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". 7.1. RIPE NCC * Responsible Organization: RIPE NCC * Location: https://rdap.db.ripe.net (https://rdap.db.ripe.net) * Description: An RDAP server returning geofeed data. * Level of Maturity: This is a production implementation. * Coverage: This implementation covers all the features described in this specification. * Contact Information: Ed Shryane, eshryane@ripe.net 8. Acknowledgements Mark Kosters provided initial support and encouragement for this work, along with the [RFC9632] authors. Gavin Brown suggested using a web link instead of a simple URL string to specify a geofeed file URL. Andy Newton, James Gould, Scott Hollenbeck, Mario Loffredo, Orie Steele, Alexey Melnikov, Mark Nottingham, Rifaat Shekh-Yusuf, Dale R. Worley, and Dhruv Dhody provided valuable feedback for this document. 9. Change History (Remove this section before publication.) 9.1. Changes from 00 to 01 * Now using a web link instead of a simple URL string to specify a geofeed file URL. * Renamed the extension as "geofeed1" instead of "geofeedv1". * Introduced the new "geo" link relation type. * Introduced the new "application/geofeed+csv" media type. 9.2. Changes from 01 to 02 Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 * Updated the "Requirements Language" section for examples. * Added an example for RDAP conformance. * Updated the rationale for using the new "application/geofeed+csv" media type. * Updated the "Applications that use this media type" section for the "application/geofeed+csv" registration. 9.3. Changes from 02 to 03 * Removed "value" and "hreflang" explanations from the "Geofeed Link" section. Further, clarified the cardinality of geofeed link objects. * Updated extensibility verbiage in the "Media Type for a Geofeed Link" section. * In the "Example" section, updated the domain in "href" of the geofeed link object to contrast with the domain in "value" to highlight that "href" is for a geofeed file hosted at a network operator site whereas "value" is for an IP network object from an RDAP server. * Removed the "Redaction" section since the geofeed files are public to start with. * Added URLs for various IANA registries. 9.4. Changes from 03 to 04 * Updated the criteria for including the extension identifier in "rdapConformance". 9.5. Changes from 04 to 05 * Made various editorial changes. 9.6. Changes from 05 to 06 * The extension identifier inclusion is now a must. * Added the "Operational Considerations" section to clarify the geofeed file and IP networks relationship, as well as how RDAP Bootstrap helps with a recommendation from RFC 8805. * Updated the "Privacy Considerations" section to clarify the service provider responsibility. 9.7. Changes from 06 to 07 * Updated the extension identifier text so as to clarify that the media type and link relation can be used independently of that identifier. Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 9.8. Changes from 07 to 08 * Added the "Implementation Status" section. * Updated references. 9.9. Changes from 08 to 09 * Incorporated feedback from the AD review. * Incorporated feedback from the media type review. * RFCs 4180, 7111, and 8805 are now normative references. * Made minor editorial changes. 9.10. Changes from 09 to 10 * Incorporated feedback from the IESG review. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082, DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021, . [RFC9083] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95, RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021, . [RFC9224] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Service", STD 95, RFC 9224, DOI 10.17487/RFC9224, March 2022, . Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 [RFC9632] Bush, R., Candela, M., Kumari, W., and R. Housley, "Finding and Using Geofeed Data", RFC 9632, DOI 10.17487/RFC9632, August 2024, . 10.2. Informative References [LINK-RELATIONS] IANA, "Link Relations", . [MEDIA-TYPES] IANA, "Media Types", . [RDAP-EXTENSIONS] IANA, "RDAP Extensions", . [REGEXT] IETF, "Registration Protocols Extensions", . [RFC4180] Shafranovich, Y., "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma- Separated Values (CSV) Files", RFC 4180, DOI 10.17487/RFC4180, October 2005, . [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480, February 2012, . [RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, . [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, . [RFC7111] Hausenblas, M., Wilde, E., and J. Tennison, "URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type", RFC 7111, DOI 10.17487/RFC7111, January 2014, . Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft rdap-geofeed April 2025 [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, . [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, . [RFC8805] Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W. Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020, . [RFC9560] Hollenbeck, S., "Federated Authentication for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Using OpenID Connect", RFC 9560, DOI 10.17487/RFC9560, April 2024, . [STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIXES] IANA, "Structured Syntax Suffixes", . Authors' Addresses Jasdip Singh ARIN Email: jasdips@arin.net Tom Harrison APNIC Email: tomh@apnic.net Singh & Harrison Expires 18 October 2025 [Page 14]