diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7485.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc7485.txt | 1851 |
1 files changed, 1851 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7485.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7485.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a507021 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7485.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1851 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Zhou +Request for Comments: 7485 N. Kong +Category: Informational S. Shen +ISSN: 2070-1721 CNNIC + S. Sheng + ICANN + A. Servin + LACNIC + March 2015 + + + Inventory and Analysis of WHOIS Registration Objects + +Abstract + + WHOIS output objects from registries, including both Regional + Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs), were + collected and analyzed. This document describes the process and + results of the statistical analysis of existing WHOIS information. + The purpose of this document is to build an object inventory to + facilitate discussions of data objects included in Registration Data + Access Protocol (RDAP) responses. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for informational purposes. + + 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). Not all documents + approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7485. + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2015 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 + (http://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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 4. RIR Objects Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.1. WHOIS Data for Organizations Holding a Resource . . . . . 7 + 4.2. WHOIS Data for Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.3. WHOIS Data for IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.4. WHOIS Data for ASNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5. DNR Object Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 5.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 5.2. Public Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 5.2.1. WHOIS Data for Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 5.2.2. WHOIS Data for Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 5.2.2.1. Registrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 5.2.2.2. Admin Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 5.2.2.3. Tech Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 5.2.2.4. Billing Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.2.3. WHOIS Data for Nameservers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.2.4. WHOIS Data for Registrars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.3. Other Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.4.1. Preliminary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.4.2. Data Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.4.3. Label Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 5.4.4. Analysis of Other Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 5.5. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 6. Reference Extension Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 6.1. RIR Reference Extension Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 6.2. DNR Reference Extension Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +1. Introduction + + Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs) + have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access + to some portion of the registry database. Most registries offer the + service via the WHOIS protocol [RFC3912], with additional services + being offered via World Wide Web pages, bulk downloads, and other + services, such as Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) + [RFC2622]. + + Although the WHOIS protocol is widely adopted and supported, it has + several shortcomings that limit its usefulness to the evolving needs + of the Internet community. Specifically: + + o It has no query and response format. + + o It does not support user authentication or access control for + differentiated access. + + o It has not been internationalized and thus does not consistently + support Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) as described in + [RFC5890]. + + This document records an inventory of registry data objects to + facilitate discussions of registration data objects. The + Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) ([RFC7480], [RFC7482], + [RFC7483], and [RFC7484]) was developed using this inventory as + input. + + In the number space, there were altogether five RIRs. Although all + RIRs provided information about IP addresses, Autonomous System + Numbers (ASNs), and contacts, the data model used was different for + each RIR. In the domain name space, there were over 200 country code + Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) and over 400 generic Top-Level Domains + (gTLDs) when this document was published. Different Domain Name + Registries may have different WHOIS response objects and formats. A + common understanding of all these data formats was critical to + construct a single data model for each object. + + This document describes the WHOIS data collection procedures and + gives an inventory analysis of data objects based on the collected + data from the five RIRs, 106 ccTLDs, and 18 gTLDs from DNRs. The RIR + data objects are classified by the five RIRs into IP address, ASN, + person or contact, and the organization that held the resource. + According to SPECIFICATION 4 ("SPECIFICATION FOR REGISTRATION DATA + PUBLICATION SERVICES") of the new gTLD applicant guidebook + [ICANN.AGB-201206] and the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) + ([RFC5730], [RFC5731], [RFC5732], and [RFC5733]), the DNR data + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + objects are classified by whether they relate to the domain, contact, + nameserver, or registrar. Objects that do not belong to the + categories above are viewed as privately specified objects. In this + document, there is no intent to analyze all the query and response + types that exist in RIRs and DNRs. The most common query objects are + discussed, but other objects such as RPSL data structures used by + Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) can be documented later if the + community feels it is necessary. + +2. Terminology + + o Data element - The name of a specific response object. + + o Label - The name given to a particular data element; it may vary + between registries. + + o Most popular label - The label that is most supported by the + registries. + + o Number of labels - The number of different labels. + + o No. of TLDs - The number of registries that support a certain data + element. + +3. Methodology + + WHOIS information, including port 43 response and web response data, + was collected between July 9, 2012, and July 20, 2012, following the + procedures described below. + + (1) First, find the RIR WHOIS servers of the five RIRs, which are + AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC. All the RIRs + provide information about IP addresses, ASNs, and contacts. + + (2) Query the corresponding IP addresses, ASNs, contacts, and + organizations registered in the five RIRs. Then, make a + comparative analysis of the response data. + + (3) Group together the data elements that have the same meaning but + use different labels. + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + DNR object collection process: + + (1) A programming script was applied to collect port 43 response + data from 294 ccTLDs. "nic.ccTLD" was used as the query string, + which is usually registered in a domain registry. Responses for + 106 ccTLDs were received. 18 gTLDs' port 43 response data was + collected from their contracts with ICANN. Thus, the sample + size of port 43 WHOIS response data is 124 registries in total. + + (2) WHOIS data from the web was collected manually from the 124 + registries that send port 43 WHOIS responses. + + (3) Some of the response that which were collected by the program + did not seem to be correct, so data for the top 10 ccTLD + registries, like .de, .eu, and .uk, was re-verified by querying + domain names other than "nic.ccTLD". + + (4) In accordance with SPECIFICATION 4 of the new gTLD applicant + guidebook [ICANN.AGB-201206] and EPP ([RFC5730], [RFC5731], + [RFC5732] and [RFC5733]), the response data objects are + classified into public and other data objects. Public data + objects are those that are defined in the above references. + Other objects are those that are privately specified data + elements or objects in different registries. + + (5) Data elements with the same meaning, but using different labels, + were grouped together. The number of registries that support + each data element is shown in the "No. of TLDs" column. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +4. RIR Objects Analysis + +4.1. WHOIS Data for Organizations Holding a Resource + + Table 1 shows the organization objects of the five RIRs. + + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | RIR | AFRINIC |APNIC| ARIN | LACNIC | RIPE NCC | + | Objects | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Organization |organisation| NA | Name | Owner | org-name | + | name | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Organization | org-name | NA | Handle | owner-id |organisation| + | ID | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Company | NA | NA | Company | NA | NA | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Name of | NA | NA | NA |responsible| NA | + | person | | | | | | + | responsible | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Type of | org-type | NA | NA | NA | org-type | + | organization | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Country | country | NA | country | country | country | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Postal | address | NA | address | address | address | + | Address | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | City | NA | NA | city | NA | address | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | State | NA | NA | StateProv| NA | address | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Postal | NA | NA |PostalCode| NA | address | + | Code | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Phone | phone | NA | NA | phone | phone | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Fax Number | fax-no | NA | NA | NA | fax-no | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | ID of | admin-c | NA | Admin | owner-c | admin-c | + |administrative| | | POC | | | + | contact | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | ID of | tech-c | NA | Tech POC | tech-c | tech-c | + | technical | | | | | | + | contact | | | | | | + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Maintainer | mnt-ref | NA | NOC POC | NA | mnt-ref | + | organization | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Maintainer | mnt-by | NA | Abuse | NA | mnt-by | + | object | | | POC | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Remarks | remarks | NA | NA | NA | remarks | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Date of | Changed | NA | RegDate | created | Changed | + | record | | | | | | + | creation | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Date of | changed | NA | Updated | changed | changed | + | record | | | | | | + | changed | | | | | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | List of | NA | NA | NA | list of | NA | + | resources | | | | resources | | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Source | source | NA | NA | NA | source | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + | Reference | NA | NA | Ref | NA | NA | + +--------------+------------+-----+----------+-----------+------------+ + + Table 1. WHOIS Data for Organizations Holding a Resource + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +4.2. WHOIS Data for Contacts + + Table 2 shows the contact objects of the five RIRs. + + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Data Element | AFRINIC | APNIC | ARIN | LACNIC | RIPE | + | | | | | | NCC | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Name | person | person | Name | person | person | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Company | NA | NA | Company | NA | NA | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Postal | address | address | Address | address | address | + | Address | | | | | | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | City | NA | NA | City | NA | address | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | State | NA | NA | StateProv | NA | address | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Postal Code | NA | NA | PostalCode | NA | address | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Country | NA | country | Country | country | NA | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Phone | phone | phone | Mobile | phone | phone | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Fax Number | fax-no | fax-no | Fax | NA | fax-no | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Email | e-mail | e-mail | Email | e-mail | NA | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | ID | nic-hdl | nic-hdl | Handle | nic-hdl | nic-hdl | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Remarks | remarks | remarks | Remarks | NA | remarks | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Notify | notify | notify | NA | NA | notify | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | ID of | mnt-by | mnt-by | NA | NA | mnt-by | + | maintainer | | | | | | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Registration | changed | NA | RegDate | created | changed | + | Date | | | | | | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Registration | changed | changed | Updated | changed | changed | + | update | | | | | | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Source | source | source | NA | NA | source | + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + | Reference | NA | NA | Ref | NA | NA | + +--------------+---------+---------+------------+---------+---------+ + + Table 2. WHOIS Data for Contacts + +4.3. WHOIS Data for IP Addresses + + Table 4 shows the IP address objects of the five RIRs. + + Note: Due to the 72-character limit on line length, strings in some + cells of the table are split into two or more parts, which are placed + on separate lines within the same cell. A hyphen in the final + position of a string indicates that the string has been split due to + the length limit. + + +----------+----------+----------+ + | Adminis- | | abuse-- | + | trative | admin-c | mailbox | + | contact | | | + +----------+----------+----------+ + + Table 3. Example of String Splitting + + For instance, the original strings in the cells of Table 3 are + "Administrative contact", "admin-c", and "abuse-mailbox", + respectively. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Data | AFRINIC| APNIC | ARIN | LACNIC | RIPE NCC | +| Element | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| IP | inetnum| inetnum | NetRange | NA | inetnum | +| address | | | | | | +| range | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| IPv6 |inet6num| inet6num | CIDR |inetnum | inet6num | +| address | | | | | | +| range | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Description| descr | descr | NetName | NA | descr | +| | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Remarks | remarks| remarks | NA | NA | remarks | +| | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Origin AS | NA | NA | OriginAS |OriginAS| NA | +| | | | |(future)| | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Network | netname| netname | NetHandle |inetrev | netname | +| name/ID | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Maintainer | mnt-by | NA | NA | NA | mnt-by | +| Object | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Maintainer | mnt-- | NA | NA | NA | NA | +| Sub- | lower | | | | | +| assignments| | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Adminis- | admin-c| admin-c | OrgId | ownerid| admin-c | +| trative | | | | | | +| contact | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Parent | parent | NA | Parent | NA | NA | +| range | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Status | status | status | NetType | status | status | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +|Registration| changed| NA | RegDate | created| changed | +| Date | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +|Registration| changed| changed | Updated | changed| changed | +| update | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Reference | NA | NA | Ref | NA | NA | + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| ID | org | NA | OrgId | owner |organisation | +|organization| | | | | | +|holding the | | | | | | +| resource | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Referral | NA | NA |ReferralServer| NA | NA | +| server | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Technical | tech-c | tech-c |OrgTechHandle | tech-c | tech-c | +| contact | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Abuse | NA | NA |OrgAbuseHandle| abuse-c|abuse-mailbox| +| contact | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Referral | NA | NA | RTechHandle | NA | NA | +| technical | | | | | | +| contact | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Referral | mnt-irt| mnt-irt | RAbuseHandle | NA | NA | +| abuse | | | | | | +| contact | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Referral | NA | NA | RNOCHandle | NA | NA | +| NOC | | | | | | +| contact | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ +| Name | NA | NA | NA | nserver| NA | +| server | | | | | | ++------------+--------+----------+--------------+--------+-------------+ + + Table 4. WHOIS Data for IP Addresses + +4.4. WHOIS Data for ASNs + ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Data | AFRINIC | APNIC | ARIN | LACNIC | RIPE NCC | +| Element | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| ID | aut-num | aut-num | ASNumber | aut-num | aut-num | +| | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Description | descr | descr | NA | NA | descr | +| | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +|Organization | org | NA | OrgId | owner | org | +| | | | | | | + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Comment | remarks | NA | Comment | NA | remarks | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +|Administrative| admin-c | admin-c | ASHandle |owner-id | admin-c | +| contact ID | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Technical | tech-c | tech-c |OrgTechHandle|routing-c| tech-c | +| contact ID | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Organization | NA | nic-hdl | NA | owner-c | organi- | +| ID | | | | | sation | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Notify | notify | notify | NA | NA | NA | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Abuse | NA | NA | OrgAbuse | abuse-c | NA | +| contact | | | Handle | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Maintainer | mnt-by | mnt-by | NA | NA | mnt-by | +| Object | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Maintainer |mnt-lower| mnt-lower| NA | NA |mnt-lower | +| Sub- | | | | | | +| assignments | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Maintainer | NA | NA | NA | NA | mnt-ref | +| Organization | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +|Registration | changed | NA | RegDate | created | NA | +| Date | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +|Registration | changed | changed | Updated | changed | NA | +| update | | | | | | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ +| Source | source | source | NA | NA | source | ++--------------+---------+----------+-------------+---------+----------+ + + Table 5. WHOIS Data for ASNs + +4.5. Conclusion + + As can be observed, some data elements were not supported by all + RIRs, and some were given different labels by different RIRs. Also, + there were identical labels used for different data elements by + different RIRs. In order to construct a single data model for each + object, a selection of the most common and useful fields was made. + That initial selection was the starting point for [RFC7483]. + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5. DNR Object Analysis + +5.1. Overview + + WHOIS data was collected from 124 registries, including 106 ccTLDs + and 18 gTLDs. All 124 registries support domain queries. Among 124 + registries, eight ccTLDs and 15 gTLDs support queries for specific + contact persons or roles. 10 ccTLDs and 18 gTLDs support queries by + nameserver. Four ccTLDs and 18 gTLDs support registrar queries. + Domain WHOIS data contain 68 data elements that use a total of 550 + labels. There is a total of 392 other objects for domain WHOIS data. + +5.2. Public Objects + + As mentioned above, public objects are those data elements selected + according to the new gTLD applicant guidebook and EPP. They are + generally classified into four categories by whether they are related + to the domain, contact, nameserver, or registrar. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.2.1. WHOIS Data for Domains + + WHOIS replies about domains include "Domain Name", "Creation Date", + "Domain Status", "Expiration Date", "Updated Date", "Domain ID", + "DNSSEC", and "Last Transferred Date". Table 6 gives the element + name, most popular label, and the corresponding numbers of TLDs and + labels. + + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Data Element | Most Popular | No. of | No. of | + | | Label | TLDs | Labels | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Domain Name | Domain Name | 118 | 6 | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Creation Date | Created | 106 | 24 | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Domain Status | Status | 95 | 8 | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Expiration Date | Expiration Date | 81 | 21 | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Updated Date | Modified | 70 | 20 | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Domain ID | Domain ID | 34 | 5 | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | DNSSEC | DNSSEC | 14 | 4 | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + | Last Transferred | Last Transferred | 4 | 3 | + | Date | Date | | | + +-------------------+-------------------+------------+--------------+ + + Table 6. WHOIS Data for Domains + + Several statistical conclusions obtained from above data are: + + o 95.16% of the 124 registries support a "Domain Name" data element. + + o 85.48% of the 124 registries support a "Creation Date" data + element. + + o 76.61% of the 124 registries support a "Domain Status" data + element. + + o On the other hand, some elements such as "DNSSEC" and "Last + Transferred Date" are only supported by 11.29% and 3.23% of the + registries, respectively. + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.2.2. WHOIS Data for Contacts + + In the domain name space, contacts are typically divided into + registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing + contact. + +5.2.2.1. Registrant + + Table 7 shows all the contact information for a registrant. 14 data + elements are listed below. + + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Data Element | Most Popular Label | No. of | No. of | + | | | TLDs | Labels | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Name | Name | 65 | 7 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Email | Registrant Email | 59 | 7 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant ID | Registrant ID | 50 | 12 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Phone | Registrant Phone | 48 | 6 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Fax | Registrant Fax | 44 | 6 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant | Registrant | 42 | 4 | + | Organization | Organization | | | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Country | Country | 42 | 6 | + | Code | | | | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant City | Registrant City | 38 | 4 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Postal | Registrant Postal | 37 | 5 | + | Code | Code | | | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant | Registrant | 32 | 4 | + | State/Province | State/Province | | | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Street | Registrant Street1 | 31 | 16 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Country | Registrant Country | 19 | 4 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Phone | Registrant Phone | 18 | 2 | + | Ext. | Ext. | | | + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + | Registrant Fax Ext | Registrant Fax Ext | 17 | 2 | + +--------------------+---------------------+-----------+------------+ + + Table 7. Registrant + + Among all the data elements, only "Registrant Name" is supported by + more than one half of registries. Those supported by more than one + third of registries are: "Registrant Name", "Registrant Email", + "Registrant ID", "Registrant Phone", "Registrant Fax", "Registrant + Organization", and "Registrant Country Code". + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.2.2.2. Admin Contact + + Table 8 shows all the contact information for an administrative + contact. 14 data elements are listed below. + + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Data Element | Most Popular Label | No. of | No. of | + | | | TLDs | Labels | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Street | Address | 64 | 19 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Name | Admin Name | 60 | 9 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Email | Admin Email | 54 | 12 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin ID | Admin ID | 52 | 16 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Fax | Admin Fax | 44 | 8 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Phone | Admin Phone | 43 | 9 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Organization | Admin Organization | 42 | 9 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Country Code | Country | 42 | 7 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin City | Admin City | 35 | 5 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Postal Code | Admin Postal Code | 35 | 7 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin | Admin | 28 | 5 | + | State/Province | State/Province | | | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Country | Admin Country | 17 | 5 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Phone Ext. | Admin Phone Ext. | 17 | 3 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Admin Fax Ext. | Admin Fax Ext. | 17 | 3 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + + Table 8. Admin Contact + + Among all the data elements, only "Admin Street" is supported by more + than one half of registries. Those supported by more than one third + of registries are: "Admin Street", "Admin Name", "Admin Email", + "Admin ID", "Admin Fax", "Admin Phone", "Admin Organization", and + "Admin Country Code". + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.2.2.3. Tech Contact + + Table 9 shows all the information for a domain name technical + contact. 14 data elements are listed below. + + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Data Element | Most Popular Label | No. of | No. of | + | | | TLDs | Labels | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Email | Tech Email | 59 | 9 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech ID | Tech ID | 55 | 16 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Name | Tech Name | 47 | 6 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Fax | Tech Fax | 45 | 9 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Phone | Tech Phone | 45 | 10 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Country Code | Country | 43 | 9 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Organization | Tech Organization | 39 | 7 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech City | Tech City | 36 | 4 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Postal Code | Tech Postal Code | 36 | 7 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech | Tech | 30 | 4 | + | State/Province | State/Province | | | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Street | Tech Street1 | 27 | 16 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Country | Tech Country | 18 | 5 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Fax Ext | Tech Fax Ext | 18 | 3 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Tech Phone Ext. | Tech Phone Ext. | 13 | 3 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + + Table 9. Tech Contact + + Among all the data elements, there are no elements supported by more + than one half of registries. Those supported by more than one third + of registries are: "Tech Email", "Tech ID", "Tech Name", "Tech Fax", + "Tech Phone", and "Tech Country Code". + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.2.2.4. Billing Contact + + Table 10 shows all the information for a domain name billing contact. + 14 data elements are listed below. + + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Data Element | Most Popular Label | No. of | No. of | + | | | TLDs | Labels | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Name | Name | 47 | 5 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Fax | Fax | 43 | 6 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Email | Email Address | 42 | 7 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Country | Country | 38 | 4 | + | Code | | | | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Phone | Phone Number | 34 | 6 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing ID | Billing ID | 28 | 9 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing City | Billing City | 28 | 4 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing | Billing | 28 | 5 | + | Organization | Organization | | | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Postal | Billing Postal | 27 | 4 | + | Code | Code | | | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing | Billing | 21 | 4 | + | State/Province | State/Province | | | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Street | Billing Street1 | 19 | 13 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Country | Billing Country | 13 | 5 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Phone Ext. | Billing Phone Ext. | 10 | 2 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Billing Fax Ext | Billing Fax Ext | 10 | 2 | + +--------------------+--------------------+-----------+-------------+ + + Table 10. Billing Contact + + Among all the data elements, there are no elements supported by more + than one half of registries. Those supported by more than one third + of registries are "Billing Name", "Billing Fax", and "Billing Email". + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.2.3. WHOIS Data for Nameservers + + 114 registries (about 92% of the 124 registries) have the + "nameserver" data element in their WHOIS responses. However, there + are 63 different labels for this element, as shown in Table 11. The + top three labels for this element are "Name Server" (which is + supported by 25% of the registries), "Name Servers" (which is + supported by 16% of the registries), and "nserver" (which is + supported by 12% of the registries). + + +--------------+--------------------+-------------+---------------+ + | Data Element | Most Popular Label | No. of TLDs | No. of Labels | + +--------------+--------------------+-------------+---------------+ + | NameServer | Name Server | 114 | 63 | + +--------------+--------------------+-------------+---------------+ + + Table 11. WHOIS Data for Nameservers + + Some registries have nameserver elements such like "nameserver 1", + "nameserver 2" till "nameserver n". Thus, there are more labels than + of other data elements. + +5.2.4. WHOIS Data for Registrars + + There are three data elements about registrar information. + + +-------------------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Data Element | Most Popular Label | No. of | No. of | + | | | TLDs | Labels | + +-------------------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Sponsoring | Registrar | 84 | 6 | + | Registrar | | | | + +-------------------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Created by | Created by | 14 | 3 | + | Registrar | | | | + +-------------------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+ + | Updated by | Last Updated by | 11 | 3 | + | Registrar | Registrar | | | + +-------------------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+ + + Table 12. WHOIS Data for Registrars + + 67.7% of the registries have the "Sponsoring Registrar" data element. + The elements "Created by Registrar" and "Updated by Registrar" are + supported by 11.3% and 8.9% of the registries, respectively. + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.3. Other Objects + + So-called "other objects" are those data elements that are privately + specified or are difficult to be classified. There are 392 other + objects altogether. Table 13 lists the top 50 other objects found + during data collection. + + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Data Element | No. of TLDs | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Registrant | 41 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Phone | 32 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Technical contact | 26 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Administrative contact | 15 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | source | 14 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | fax-no | 13 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | nic-hdl | 13 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Billing Contact | 12 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | referral url | 11 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | e-mail | 10 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | WHOIS server | 9 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Admin Contact | 9 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Type | 9 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Website | 9 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | zone-c | 8 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | remarks | 7 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Registration URL | 6 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | anonymous | 6 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | anniversary | 6 | + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | hold | 6 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | nsl-id | 6 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | obsoleted | 6 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Customer Service Contact | 5 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Customer Service Email | 4 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Registrar ID | 4 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | org | 4 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | person | 4 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Maintainer | 4 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Nombre | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Trademark Number | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Trademark Country | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | descr | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | url | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Postal address | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Registrar URL | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | International Name | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | International Address | 3 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Admin Contacts | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Contractual Language | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Date Trademark Registered | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Date Trademark Applied For | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | IP Address | 2 | + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Keys | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Language | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | NIC handle | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Record maintained by | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Registration Service Provider | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Registration Service Provided By | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | Registrar URL (registration services) | 2 | + +----------------------------------------+-------------+ + + Table 13. The Top 50 Other Objects + + Some registries returned things that looked like labels, but were + not. For example, in this reply: + + Registrant: + Name: + Email: + ... + + "Name" and "Email" appeared to be data elements, but "Registrant" did + not. The inventory work proceeded on that assumption, i.e., there + were two data elements to be recorded in this example. + + Some other data elements, like "Remarks", "anniversary", and + "Customer service Contact", are designed particularly for their own + purpose by different registries. + +5.4. Conclusion + +5.4.1. Preliminary Statistics + + Some preliminary conclusions could be drawn from the raw data. + + o All of the 124 domain registries have the object names in their + responses, although they are in various formats. + + o Of the 118 WHOIS services contacted, 65 registries show their + registrant contact. About half of the registries (60 registries) + support admin contact information. There are 47 registries, which + is about one third of the total number, that have technical and + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 24] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + billing contact information. Only seven of the 124 registries + give their abuse email in a "remarks" section. No explicit abuse + contact information is provided. + + o There are mainly two presentation formats. One is key-value; the + other is data block format. Example of key-value format: + + Domain Information + Query: nic.example.com + Status: Delegated + Created: 17 Apr 2004 + Modified: 14 Nov 2010 + Expires: 31 Dec 9999 + Name Servers: ns.example.net + ns1.na.example.net + ns2.na.example.net + ... + + Example of data block format: + + WHOIS database + domain nic.example.org + + Domain Name nic.example.org + Registered 1998-09-02 + Expiry 2012-09-02 + + Resource Records + + a 198.51.100.1 + mx 10 test.example.net + www a 198.51.100.10 + + + Contact details + + Registrant, + Technical Contact, + Billing Contact, + Admin. Contact AdamsNames Reserved Domains (i) + These domains are not available for registration + United Kingdom + Identifier: test123 + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 25] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + Servidor WHOIS de NIC-Example + + Este servidor contiene informacion autoritativa exclusivamente de + dominios nic.example.org Cualquier consulta sobre este servicio, puede + hacerla al correo electronico whois@nic.example.org + + Titular: + John (nic.example.org) john@nic.example.org + NIC Example + Av. Veracruz con calle Cali, Edif Aguila, Urb. Las Mercedes + Caracas, Distrito Capital VE + 0212-1234567 (FAX) +582123456789 + + o 11 registries give local script responses. The WHOIS information + of other registries are all represented in English. + +5.4.2. Data Element Analysis + + The top 10 data elements are listed in Table 14. + + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Data Element | No. of TLDs | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Domain Name | 118 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Name Server | 114 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Creation Date | 106 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Domain Status | 95 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Sponsoring Registrar | 84 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Expiration Date | 81 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Updated Date | 70 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Registrant Name | 65 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Admin Street | 64 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + | Admin Name | 60 | + +----------------------+-------------+ + + Table 14. The Top 10 Data Elements + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + Most of the domain-related WHOIS information is included in the top + 10 data elements. Other information like name server and registrar + name is also supported by most registries. + + A cumulative distribution analysis of all the data elements was done. + + (1) About 5% of the data elements discovered by the inventory work + are supported by 111 registries (i.e., 90%). + + (2) About 30% of the data elements discovered by the inventory work + are supported by 44 registries (i.e., 35%). + + (3) About 60% of the data elements discovered by the inventory work + are supported by 32 registries (i.e., 26%). + + (4) About 90% of the data elements discovered by the inventory work + are supported by 14 registries (i.e., 11%). + + From the above result, it is clear that only a few registries support + all the public objects, most of the registries support just some of + the objects. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 27] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +5.4.3. Label Analysis + + The top 10 labels of different data elements are listed in Table 15. + + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Labels | No. of Labels | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Name Server | 63 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Creation Date | 24 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Expiration Date | 21 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Updated Date | 20 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Admin Street | 19 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Tech ID | 18 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Registrant Street | 16 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Admin ID | 16 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Tech Street | 16 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + | Billing Street | 13 | + +-------------------+---------------+ + + Table 15. The Top 10 Labels + + As explained above, the "Name Server" label is a unique example + because many registries define the name server elements from + "nameserver 1" through "nameserver n". Thus, the count of labels for + name servers is much higher than other elements. Data elements + representing dates and street addresses were also common. + + A cumulative distribution analysis of label numbers was done. About + 90% of data elements have more than two labels. It is therefore + necessary to specify a standard and unified format for object names + in a WHOIS response. + +5.4.4. Analysis of Other Objects + + The results indicate that there are 392 other data objects in total + that are not easy to be classified or are privately defined by + various registries. The top 50 other objects are listed in Table 13 + in Section 5.3. It is clear that various different objects are + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 28] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + designed for some particular purpose. In order to ensure uniqueness + of JSON names used in the RDAP service, establishment of an IANA + registry is advised. + +5.5. Limitations + + This section lists the limitations of the survey and some assumptions + that were made in the execution of this work. + + o The input "nic.ccTLD" may not be a good choice, for the term "nic" + is often specially used by the corresponding ccTLD, so the + collected WHOIS data may be customized and different from the + common data. + + o Since the programming script queried the "nic.ccTLD" in an + anonymous way, only the public WHOIS data from WHOIS servers + having nic.ccTLD were collected. So, the private WHOIS data were + not covered by this document. + + o 11 registries did not provide responses in English. The + classification of data elements within their responses may not be + accurate. + + o The extension data elements are used randomly by different + registries. It is difficult to do statistical analysis. + + o Sample sizes of contact, name server, and registrar queries are + small. + + * Only WHOIS queries for contact ID, nameserver, and registrar + were used. + + * Some registries may not support contact, name server, or + registrar queries. + + * Some may not support query contact by ID. + + * Contact information of some registries may be protected. + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 29] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +6. Reference Extension Objects + + There are some objects that are included in the existing WHOIS system + but not mentioned in [RFC7483]. This document is intended to give a + list of reference extension objects for discussion. + +6.1. RIR Reference Extension Objects + + o company - the company name registered by the registrant. + + o maintainer - authentication information that identifies who can + modify the contents of this object. + + o list of resources - a list of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and + Autonomous System numbers. + + o referral NOC contact - the Network Operations Center contact. + +6.2. DNR Reference Extension Objects + + The following objects are selected from the top 50 other objects in + Section 5.3 that are supported by more than five registries. These + objects are considered as possible extension objects. + + o zone-c - The identifier of a 'role' object with authority over a + zone. + + o maintainer - authentication information that identifies who can + modify the contents of this object. + + o Registration URL - typically the website address of a registry. + + o anonymous - whether the registration information is anonymous or + not. + + o hold - whether the domain is "on hold" or not. + + o nsl-id - nameserver list ID. + + o obsoleted - whether a domain is obsoleted or not. + + o Customer Service Contact - a kind of contact. + +7. Security Considerations + + This document does not provide any security services or introduce + additional considerations to those discussed in [RFC7481]. + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 30] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + +8. Informative References + + [ICANN.AGB-201206] + ICANN, "gTLD Applicant Guidebook", June 2012, + <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/ + guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>. + + [RFC2622] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D., + Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra, + "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622, + June 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2622>. + + [RFC3912] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, + September 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>. + + [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", + STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>. + + [RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) + Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, August 2009, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>. + + [RFC5732] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) + Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, August 2009, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5732>. + + [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) + Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, August 2009, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>. + + [RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for + Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", + RFC 5890, August 2010, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>. + + [RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the + Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, March + 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>. + + [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the + Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, March + 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>. + + [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access + Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, March 2015, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>. + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 31] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the + Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, March + 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>. + + [RFC7484] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data + (RDAP) Service", RFC 7484, March 2015, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7484>. + +Acknowledgements + + This document is the work product of the IETF's WEIRDS working group, + of which Olaf Kolkman and Murray Kucherawy were chairs. + + The authors especially thank the following individuals who gave their + suggestions and contributions to this document: Guangqing Deng, + Frederico A C Neves, Ray Bellis, Edward Shryane, Kaveh Ranjbar, + Murray Kucherawy, Edward Lewis, Pete Resnick, Juergen Schoenwaelder, + Ben Campbell, and Claudio Allocchio. + +Authors' Addresses + + Linlin Zhou + CNNIC + 4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun, Haidian District + Beijing 100190 + China + + Phone: +86 10 5881 2677 + EMail: zhoulinlin@cnnic.cn + + + Ning Kong + CNNIC + 4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun, Haidian District + Beijing 100190 + China + + Phone: +86 10 5881 3147 + EMail: nkong@cnnic.cn + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 32] + +RFC 7485 Inventory of WHOIS Reg. Objects March 2015 + + + Sean Shen + CNNIC + 4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun, Haidian District + Beijing 100190 + China + + Phone: +86 10 5881 3038 + EMail: shenshuo@cnnic.cn + + + Steve Sheng + ICANN + 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 + Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 + United States + + Phone: +1 310 301 5800 + EMail: steve.sheng@icann.org + + + Arturo Servin + LACNIC + Rambla Mexico 6125 + Montevideo 11400 + Uruguay + + Phone: +598-2604-2222 + EMail: arturo.servin@gmail.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Zhou, et al. Informational [Page 33] + |