path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9536.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       M. Loffredo
Request for Comments: 9536                                 M. Martinelli
Category: Standards Track                            IIT-CNR/Registro.it
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               April 2024


        Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Reverse Search

Abstract

   The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include query
   capabilities for finding the list of domains related to a set of
   entities matching a given search pattern.  Considering that an RDAP
   entity can be associated with any defined object class and other
   relationships between RDAP object classes exist, a reverse search can
   be applied to other use cases besides the classic domain-entity
   scenario.  This document describes an RDAP extension that allows
   servers to provide a reverse search feature based on the relationship
   defined in RDAP between an object class for search and any related
   object class.  The reverse search based on the domain-entity
   relationship is treated as a particular case.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9536.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Background
     1.2.  Conventions Used in This Document
   2.  Reverse Search Path Segment Specification
   3.  Reverse Search Definition
   4.  Reverse Search Properties Discovery
   5.  Reverse Search Properties Mapping
   6.  Reverse Search Response Specification
   7.  Reverse Search Query Processing
   8.  Reverse Searches Based on Entity Details
   9.  RDAP Conformance
   10. Implementation Considerations
   11. IANA Considerations
     11.1.  RDAP Extensions Registry
     11.2.  RDAP Reverse Search Registries
       11.2.1.  Creation of the RDAP Reverse Search Registries
       11.2.2.  Submit Requests to IANA
       11.2.3.  RDAP Reverse Search Registry
         11.2.3.1.  Template
         11.2.3.2.  Initial Content
       11.2.4.  RDAP Reverse Search Mapping Registry
         11.2.4.1.  Template
         11.2.4.2.  Initial Content
   12. Privacy Considerations
   13. Security Considerations
   14. References
     14.1.  Normative References
     14.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Paradigms to Enforce Access Control on Reverse Search
           in RDAP
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The protocol described in this specification aims to extend the RDAP
   query capabilities and response to enable reverse search based on the
   relationships defined in RDAP between an object class for search and
   a related object class.  The reverse search based on the domain-
   entity relationship is treated as a particular case of such a generic
   model.

   RDAP providers willing to implement this specification should
   carefully consider its implications on the efficiency (see
   Section 10), the security (see Section 13), and the compliance with
   privacy regulations (see Section 12) of their RDAP service.

1.1.  Background

   Reverse WHOIS is a service provided by many web applications that
   allows users to find domain names owned by an individual or a company
   starting from the owner's details, such as name and email.  Even if
   it has been considered useful for some legal purposes (e.g.,
   uncovering trademark infringements and detecting cybercrimes), its
   availability as a standardized WHOIS [RFC3912] capability has been
   objected to for two main reasons, which now don't seem to conflict
   with an RDAP implementation.

   The first objection concerns the potential risks of privacy
   violation.  However, the domain name community is considering a new
   generation of Registration Directory Services [ICANN-RDS] [ICANN-RA]
   that provide access to sensitive data under some permissible purposes
   and in accordance with appropriate policies for requestor
   accreditation, authentication, and authorization.  RDAP's reliance on
   HTTP means that it can make use of common HTTP-based approaches to
   authentication and authorization, making it more useful than WHOIS in
   the context of such directory services.  Since RDAP consequently
   permits a reverse search implementation complying with privacy
   protection principles, this first objection is not well-founded.

   The second objection to the implementation of a reverse search
   capability has been connected with its impact on server processing.
   However, the core RDAP specifications already define search queries,
   with similar processing requirements, so the basis of this objection
   is not clear.

   Reverse searches, such as finding the list of domain names associated
   with contacts or nameservers, may be useful to registrars as well.
   Usually, registries adopt out-of-band solutions to provide results to
   registrars asking for reverse searches on their domains.  Possible
   reasons for such requests are:

   *  the loss of synchronization between the registrar database and the
      registry database and

   *  the need for such data to perform bulk Extensible Provisioning
      Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730] updates (e.g., changing the contacts of a
      set of domains, etc.).

   Currently, RDAP does not provide any means for a client to search for
   the collection of domains associated with an entity [RFC9082].  A
   query (lookup or search) on domains can return the array of entities
   related to a domain with different roles (registrant, registrar,
   administrative, technical, reseller, etc.), but the reverse operation
   is not allowed.  Only reverse searches to find the collection of
   domains related to a nameserver (ldhName or ip) can be requested.
   Since an entity can be in relationship with any RDAP object
   [RFC9083], the availability of a reverse search as largely intended
   can be common to all the object classes allowed for search.  Through
   a further step of generalization, the meaning of reverse search in
   the RDAP context can be extended to include any query for retrieving
   all the objects that relates to another query matching a given search
   pattern.

1.2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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.

2.  Reverse Search 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 follows:

   "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).

   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.

3.  Reverse Search Definition

   Based on the content of Section 2, defining a reverse search means to
   define the triple <searchable resource type, related resource type,
   property> and the mapping with the corresponding RDAP object member.
   The mapping is done through the use of a JSONPath expression
   [RFC9535].  Reverse searches are registered in the "RDAP Reverse
   Search" registry (see Section 11.2.3), whereas reverse search
   mappings are registered in the "RDAP Reverse Search Mapping" registry
   (see Section 11.2.4).  The reason for having two registries is that
   it may be possible for a single type of reverse search to rely on
   different members, depending on the server's configuration (see
   Section 5).

   All of the reverse searches defined by this document (see Section 8)
   have property names that are the same as the name of the RDAP object
   member that is the subject of the search.  For example, the reverse
   search with the property name "fn" relies on the value of the "fn"
   member inside the jCard of an entity object.  However, it is not
   necessary that these two names be the same.  In particular, remapping
   of searches as part of the deprecation of an existing member (see
   Section 5) will typically lead to a member with a different name
   being used for the search.

   Servers MUST NOT provide or implement reverse searches or reverse
   search mappings that are not registered with IANA.

4.  Reverse Search Properties Discovery

   Servers complying with this specification MUST extend the help
   response [RFC9083] with the "reverse_search_properties" member that
   contains an array of objects with the following mandatory child
   members:

   "searchableResourceType":  the searchable resource type of the
      reverse search query, as defined in Section 2

   "relatedResourceType":  the related resource type of the reverse
      search query, as defined in Section 2

   "property":  the reverse search property used in the predicate of the
      reverse search query, as defined in Section 2

   An example of the help response including the
   "reverse_search_properties" member is shown in Figure 2

5.  Reverse Search Properties Mapping

   To permit clients to determine the member used by the server for a
   reverse search, servers MUST detail the mapping that is occurring by
   adding the "reverse_search_properties_mapping" member to the topmost
   object of a reverse search response.  This data structure is included
   in the search response, rather than in the help response, because it
   may differ depending on the query that is sent to the server.

   Documents that deprecate or restructure RDAP responses such that a
   registered reverse search is no longer able to be used 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 adding another mapping for the reverse search
   property (in the case of restructuring).

   The "reverse_search_properties_mapping" member contains an array of
   objects with the following mandatory child members:

   "property":  the reverse search property used in the predicate of the
      current query, as defined in Section 2

   "propertyPath":  the JSONPath expression of the object member (or
      members) corresponding to the reverse search property

   The searchable and the related resource types are derived from the
   query, so there is no need to include them in addition to the
   property in this member.

   This member MUST be included for all properties used in the search,
   regardless of whether that property has multiple registered mappings
   as at the time of the search, because new mappings may be registered
   at any time.

   When applied to an object, the JSONPath expression MUST produce a
   list of values, each of which is a JSON number or string.

   An example of a reverse search response including the
   "reverse_search_properties_mapping" member is shown in Figure 3.

6.  Reverse Search 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.

7.  Reverse Search Query Processing

   To process a reverse search, the server returns the objects from its
   data store that are of type searchable-resource-type and that match
   each of the predicates from the search conditions.  To determine
   whether an object matches a predicate, the server:

   *  applies the mapping it uses for the reverse search property to the
      object in order to generate a list of values, each of which MUST
      be a JSON number or string and

   *  checks whether the search pattern matches one or more of those
      values.

   A search pattern matches a value where it equals the string
   representation of the value or where it is a match for the value in
   accordance with the partial string matching behavior defined in
   Section 4.1 of [RFC9082].

   Objects are only included in the search results if they satisfy all
   included predicates.  This includes predicates that are for the same
   property; in such a case, it is necessary for the related object to
   match against each of those predicates.

   Servers MUST return an HTTP 501 (Not Implemented) [RFC9110] response
   to inform clients of unsupported reverse searches.

   Based on their policy, servers MAY restrict how predicates are used
   to make a valid search condition by returning a 400 (Bad Request)
   response when a problematic request is received.

   A given reverse search or reverse search mapping MAY define
   additional or alternative search behavior past that set out in this
   section.

8.  Reverse Searches Based on Entity Details

   Since an entity can be associated with any other object class in
   RDAP, 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, entity-searchable resource types,
   and entity-related resource type:

   Reverse search property:  role
   RDAP member path:  $.entities[*].roles
   Reference:  Section 10.2.4 of [RFC9083]

   Reverse search property:  handle
   RDAP member path:  $.entities[*].handle
   Reference:  Section 5.1 of [RFC9083]

   Reverse search property:  fn
   RDAP member path:  $.entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]
   Reference:  Section 6.2.1 of [RFC6350]

   Reverse search property:  email
   RDAP member path:  $.entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')][3]
   Reference:  Section 6.4.2 of [RFC6350]

   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

                Figure 1: Examples of Reverse Search Queries

   An example of the help response including the supported reverse
   search properties is shown in Figure 2.

      {
        "rdapConformance": [
          "rdap_level_0",
          "reverse_search"
        ],
        ...
        "reverse_search_properties": [
          {
            "searchableResourceType": "domains",
            "relatedResourceType": "entity",
            "property": "fn"
          },
          {
            "searchableResourceType": "domains",
            "relatedResourceType": "entity",
            "property": "handle"
          },
          {
            "searchableResourceType": "domains",
            "relatedResourceType": "entity",
            "property": "email"
          },
          {
            "searchableResourceType": "domains",
            "relatedResourceType": "entity",
            "property": "role"
          }
        ],
        ...
      }

          Figure 2: An Example of the Help Response including the
                     "reverse_search_properties" Member

   An example of a response including the mapping that is occurring for
   the first reverse search in Figure 1 is shown below.

      {
        "rdapConformance": [
          "rdap_level_0",
          "reverse_search"
        ],
        ...
        "reverse_search_properties_mapping": [
          {
            "property": "handle",
            "propertyPath": "$.entities[*].handle"
          },
          {
            "property": "role",
            "propertyPath": "$.entities[*].roles"
          }
        ],
        ...
      }

           Figure 3: An Example of an RDAP Response including the
                 "reverse_search_properties_mapping" Member

9.  RDAP Conformance

   Servers complying with this specification MUST include the value
   "reverse_search" in the rdapConformance property of the help response
   [RFC9083] and any other response including the
   "reverse_search_properties_mapping" member.  The information needed
   to register this value in the "RDAP Extensions" registry is described
   in Section 11.1.

10.  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].

11.  IANA Considerations

11.1.  RDAP Extensions Registry

   IANA has registered the following value in the "RDAP Extensions"
   registry:

   Extension Identifier:  reverse_search

   Registry Operator:  Any

   Specification:  RFC 9536

   Contact:  IETF <iesg@ietf.org>

   Intended Usage:  This extension identifier is used for both URI path
      segments and response extensions related to the reverse search in
      RDAP.

11.2.  RDAP Reverse Search Registries

11.2.1.  Creation of the RDAP Reverse Search Registries

   IANA has created the "RDAP Reverse Search" and "RDAP Reverse Search
   Mapping" registries within the "Registration Data Access Protocol
   (RDAP)" category in the protocol registries.

   These registries follow the Specification Required registration
   policy, as defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126].

   The designated expert should prevent collisions and confirm that
   suitable documentation, as described in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126], is
   available to ensure interoperability.

   Creators of either new RDAP reverse searches or new mappings for
   registered reverse searches SHOULD NOT replicate functionality
   already available by way of other documents referenced in these
   registries.  Creators MAY register additional reverse search mappings
   for existing properties, but they SHOULD NOT map a registered reverse
   search property to a response field with a meaning other than that of
   the response fields referenced by the mappings already registered for
   that property.  In other words, all the mappings for a reverse search
   property MUST point to response fields with the same meaning.

11.2.2.  Submit Requests to IANA

   Registration requests can be sent to <iana@iana.org>.

11.2.3.  RDAP Reverse Search Registry

11.2.3.1.  Template

   Property:  The name of the reverse search property.

   Description:  A brief human-readable text describing the reverse
      search property.

   Searchable Resource Type:  The searchable resource type of the
      reverse search query (Section 2) including the reverse search
      property.  Multiple reverse search properties differing only by
      this field can be grouped together by listing all the searchable
      resource types separated by comma (see Section 11.2.3.2).

   Related Resource Type:  The related resource type of the reverse
      search query (Section 2) including the reverse search property.

   Registrant:  The name of the person registering the reverse search
      property.

   Contact Information:  An email address, postal address, or some other
      information to be used to contact the registrant.

   Reference:  Document (e.g., the RFC number) and section reference
      where the reverse search property is specified.

   The combination of Searchable Resource Type, Related Resource Type,
   and Property MUST be unique across the registry entries.

11.2.3.2.  Initial Content

   IANA has registered the following entries in the "RDAP Reverse
   Search" registry.  For all entries, the common values are shown in
   Table 1, whereas the specific values are shown in Table 2.

       +==========================+================================+
       | Registry Property        | Value                          |
       +==========================+================================+
       | Searchable Resource Type | domains, nameservers, entities |
       +--------------------------+--------------------------------+
       | Related Resource Type    | entity                         |
       +--------------------------+--------------------------------+
       | Registrant               | IETF                           |
       +--------------------------+--------------------------------+
       | Contact Information      | iesg@ietf.org                  |
       +--------------------------+--------------------------------+
       | Reference                | RFC 9536                       |
       +--------------------------+--------------------------------+

             Table 1: Common Values for All Entries in the RDAP
                          Reverse Search Registry

        +==========+==============================================+
        | Property | Description                                  |
        +==========+==============================================+
        | fn       | The server supports the domain/nameserver/   |
        |          | entity search based on the full name (a.k.a. |
        |          | formatted name) of an associated entity      |
        +----------+----------------------------------------------+
        | handle   | The server supports the domain/nameserver/   |
        |          | entity search based on the handle of an      |
        |          | associated entity                            |
        +----------+----------------------------------------------+
        | email    | The server supports the domain/nameserver/   |
        |          | entity search based on the email address of  |
        |          | an associated entity                         |
        +----------+----------------------------------------------+
        | role     | The server supports the domain/nameserver/   |
        |          | entity search based on the role of an        |
        |          | associated entity                            |
        +----------+----------------------------------------------+

              Table 2: Specific Values for Entries in the RDAP
                          Reverse Search Registry

11.2.4.  RDAP Reverse Search Mapping Registry

11.2.4.1.  Template

   Property:  The same as defined in the "RDAP Reverse Search" registry.

   Property Path:  The JSONPath of the RDAP property this reverse search
      property maps to.

   Searchable Resource Type:  The same as defined in the "RDAP Reverse
      Search" registry.

   Related Resource Type:  The same as defined in the "RDAP Reverse
      Search" registry.

   Registrant:  The name of the person registering this reverse search
      property mapping.

   Contact Information:  The same as defined in the "RDAP Reverse
      Search" registry.

   Reference:  Document (e.g., the RFC number) and section reference
      where this reverse search property mapping is specified.

   The combination of Searchable Resource Type, Related Resource Type,
   Property, and Property Path MUST be unique across the registry
   entries.

11.2.4.2.  Initial Content

   IANA has registered the following entries in the "RDAP Reverse Search
   Mapping" registry.  For all entries, the common values are the same
   as defined in the "RDAP Reverse Search" registry (see Table 1),
   whereas the specific values are shown below (see Table 3).

      +==========+==================================================+
      | Property | Property Path                                    |
      +==========+==================================================+
      | fn       | $.entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]    |
      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+
      | handle   | $.entities[*].handle                             |
      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+
      | email    | $.entities[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')][3] |
      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+
      | role     | $.entities[*].roles                              |
      +----------+--------------------------------------------------+

          Table 3: Specific Values for Entries in the RDAP Reverse
                          Search Mapping Registry

12.  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 trade-offs
   that result from implementing 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 those cases where this functionality makes use of sensitive
   information, the information MUST only be accessible to authorized
   users under a lawful basis.

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

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

   *  Correlation

   *  Disclosure

   *  Misuse of data

   Therefore, RDAP providers need to mitigate the risk of those threats
   by implementing appropriate measures supported by security services
   (see Section 13).

13.  Security Considerations

   Security services that are 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.

   As an additional measure to enforce security by preventing reverse
   searches to be accessed from unauthorized users, the RDAP providers
   may consider physically separating the reverse search endpoints from
   the other ones by configuring a proxy routing the reverse searches to
   a dedicated backend server and leveraging further security services
   offered by other protocol layers, such as digital certificates and IP
   allow-listing.

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

14.  References

14.1.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6350]  Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.

   [RFC7095]  Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7095>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9082]  Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
              Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>.

   [RFC9110]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110>.

   [RFC9535]  Gössner, S., Ed., Normington, G., Ed., and C. Bormann,
              Ed., "JSONPath: Query Expressions for JSON", RFC 9535,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9535, February 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9535>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [ICANN-RA] ICANN, "Base Registry Agreement", January 2024,
              <https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements/base-
              agreement>.

   [ICANN-RDS]
              ICANN, "Final Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD
              Directory Services: A Next-Generation Registration
              Directory Service (RDS)", June 2014,
              <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-
              06jun14-en.pdf>.

   [OIDCC]    Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
              C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating
              errata set 2", December 2023,
              <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.

   [RFC3912]  Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3912, September 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3912>.

   [RFC5730]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
              STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC8977]  Loffredo, M., Martinelli, M., and S. Hollenbeck,
              "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters
              for Result Sorting and Paging", RFC 8977,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8977, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8977>.

   [RFC8982]  Loffredo, M. and M. Martinelli, "Registration Data Access
              Protocol (RDAP) Partial Response", RFC 8982,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8982, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8982>.

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 listed below
   leverage the capabilities that are either built in or provided as
   extensions by the OpenID Connect [OIDCC]:

   Role-Based Access Control (RBAC):  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 (PBAC):  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.

   Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC):  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 within an out-of-band process by setting additional
      OpenID Connect claims that describe the request context and make
      the RDAP server check for compliance between the given context and
      the control rules that are applied to the data to be returned.

   Time-Based Access Control (TBAC):  Data access is allowed for a
      limited time only.  It can be implemented by assigning users
      temporary credentials linked to access grants with limited scopes.

   With regard to the privacy threats reported in Section 12,
   correlation and disclosure can be mitigated by minimizing both the
   request features and the response data based on user roles (i.e.,
   RBAC).  Misuse can be mitigated by checking for the purpose of the
   request (i.e., PBAC).  It can be accomplished according to the
   following approaches:

   Full Trust:  The registry trusts the fairness of an accredited user.
      The requestor is always legitimized to submit their requests under
      a lawful basis.  Additionally, they can be required to specify the
      purpose as either a claim of their account or a query parameter.
      In the former case, the purpose is assumed to be the same for
      every request.  In the latter case, the purpose must be one of
      those associated to the user.

   Zero Trust:  The registry requires documents that assess whether the
      requestor is legitimized to submit a given request.  It can be
      implemented by assigning the requestor a temporary OpenID account
      linked to the given request (i.e., TBAC) and describing the
      request through a set of claims (i.e., ABAC).  The association
      between the temporary account and the claims about the request is
      made by an out-of-band application.  In so doing, the RDAP server
      is able to check that the incoming request is consistent with the
      request claims linked to the temporary account.

   The two approaches can be used together:

   *  The former is suitable for users carrying out a task in the public
      interest or exercising their official authority (e.g., an officer
      of a cybercrime agency).  Similarly, registrars can submit reverse
      searches on their domains and contacts based on their contractual
      relationship with the domain holders.  In this case, the query
      results can be restricted to those pertaining to a registrar by
      adding an implicit predicate to the search condition.

   *  The latter can be taken to allow domain name dispute resolution
      service providers to request information in defense of the
      legitimate interests of complainants.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
   their contributions to this document: Francesco Donini, Scott
   Hollenbeck, Francisco Arias, Gustavo Lozano, Eduardo Alvarez, Ulrich
   Wisser, James Gould, and Pawel Kowalik.

   Tom Harrison and Jasdip Singh provided relevant feedback and constant
   support to the implementation of this proposal.  Their contributions
   have been greatly appreciated.

Authors' Addresses

   Mario Loffredo
   IIT-CNR/Registro.it
   Via Moruzzi,1
   56124 Pisa
   Italy
   Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
   URI:   http://www.iit.cnr.it


   Maurizio Martinelli
   IIT-CNR/Registro.it
   Via Moruzzi,1
   56124 Pisa
   Italy
   Email: maurizio.martinelli@iit.cnr.it
   URI:   http://www.iit.cnr.it