| Internet-Draft | rdap-geofeed | October 2024 |
| Singh & Harrison | Expires 21 April 2025 | [Page] |
This document defines a new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects. It also defines a new media type and link relation type for the associated link objects included in responses.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 April 2025.¶
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.¶
[RFC8805] and [RFC9632] detail the IP geolocation feed (commonly known as 'geofeed') file format and associated access mechanisms. This document specifies how geofeed URLs can be accessed through RDAP. It defines a new RDAP extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects, as well as a media type and a link relation type for the associated link objects.¶
The keywords "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 [BCP14] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships, and are not a REQUIRED feature of this protocol.¶
"..." in examples is used as shorthand for elements defined outside of this document.¶
[RFC9632] requires a geofeed file to be a UTF-8 [RFC3629] comma-separated values (CSV) file, with a series of "#" comments at the end for the optional Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI, [RFC6480]) signature. At first glance, the "text/csv" media type (Section 4 of [I-D.shafranovich-rfc4180-bis]) seems like a good candidate for a geofeed file, since it supports the "#" comments needed for including the RPKI signature.¶
However, although the CSV geofeed data could be viewed directly by a user such that the "text/csv" media type was appropriate, the most common use case will involve it being processed by some sort of application first, in order to facilitate subsequent address lookup operations. Therefore, using a new "application" media type with a "geofeed" subtype (Section 4.2.5 of [RFC6838]) for the geofeed data is preferable to using "text/csv".¶
To that end, this document registers a new "application/geofeed+csv" media type in the IANA Media Types Registry (see Section 6.3), and a new "+csv" suffix in the IANA Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry (see Section 6.4).¶
An RDAP server that hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects (Section 5.4 of [RFC9083]) may include link objects for those geofeed URLs in IP network objects in its responses. These link objects are added to the "links" member of each object (Section 4.2 of [RFC9083]).¶
In RDAP, the "value", "rel", and "href" JSON members are REQUIRED for any link object. Additionally, for a geofeed link object, the "type" JSON member is RECOMMENDED. The geofeed-specific components of a link object are like so:¶
An IP network object returned by an RDAP server may contain zero, one, or multiple geofeed link objects. An example scenario where more than one geofeed link object would be returned is where the server is able to represent that data in multiple languages (see the "hreflang" member of a link object).¶
This document defines a new extension identifier, "geofeed1", for use by servers that host geofeed URLs for their IP network objects and include geofeed URL link objects in their responses to clients in accordance with Section 2.2. A server that uses this extension identifier MUST include it in the "rdapConformance" array for any lookup or search response containing an IP network object, as well as in the help response. Here is an elided example for this inclusion:¶
{
"rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", "geofeed1", ... ],
...
}
¶
An RDAP server may make use of the "application/geofeed+csv" media type and the "geo" link relation defined in this specification in its responses without including the "geofeed1" extension identifier in those responses, because RDAP servers are free to use any registered media type or link relation in a standard response (without implementing any particular extension). The additional value of the extension identifier here is that it signals to the client that the server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects. This is useful where a client receives an IP network object without a geofeed link object, because in that case the client can infer that no geofeed data is available for that object, since the server would have provided it if it were available.¶
Although a server may use registered media types in its link objects without any restrictions, it may be useful to define new RDAP extensions for those media types in order for the server to communicate to clients that it will make data for that type accessible, in the same way that the server does with the "geofeed1" extension identifier.¶
The following is an elided example of an IP network object with a geofeed link object:¶
{
"objectClassName": "ip network",
"handle": "XXXX-RIR",
"startAddress": "2001:db8::",
"endAddress": "2001:db8:0:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff",
"ipVersion": "v6",
"name": "NET-RTR-1",
"type": "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
"country": "AU",
"parentHandle": "YYYY-RIR",
"status": [ "active" ],
"links":
[
{
"value": "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel": "self",
"href": "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"type": "application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value": "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
"rel": "geo",
"href": "https://example.com/geofeed",
"type": "application/geofeed+csv"
},
...
],
...
}
¶
When an RDAP server is queried for an IP network for a given address range, it is required to return the most-specific IP network object that covers the address range. That IP network object may not have an associated geofeed link, but it is possible that a less-specific IP network object does have such a link. Clients attempting to retrieve geofeed data for a given address range via RDAP should consider whether to retrieve the parent object for the initial response (and so on, recursively) in the event that the initial response does not contain geofeed data. Conversely, server operators should consider interface options for resource holders in order to support the provisioning of geofeed links for all networks covered by the associated data.¶
It is common for a resource holder to maintain a single geofeed file containing the geofeed data for all of their resources. The resource holder then updates each of their network object registrations to refer to that single geofeed file. As with geofeed references in inetnum objects (per [RFC9632]), clients who find a geofeed link object within an IP network object MUST ignore geofeed data from that link that is outside the IP network object's address range.¶
Section 3.2 of [RFC8805] recommends that consumers of geofeed data verify that the publisher of the data is authoritative for the relevant resources. The RDAP bootstrap process ([RFC9224]) helps clients with this recommendation, since a client following that process will be directed to the RDAP server that is able to make authoritative statements about the disposition of the relevant resources.¶
When including a geofeed file URL in an IP network object, it is expected that the service provider publishing the geofeed file has followed the guidance from Section 7 of [RFC9632] to not accidentally expose the location of an individual.¶
Many jurisdictions have laws or regulations that restrict the use of "personal data", per the definition in [RFC6973]. Given that, registry operators should ascertain whether the regulatory environment in which they operate permits implementation of the functionality defined in this document.¶
[RFC9632] requires an HTTPS URL for a geofeed file. The geofeed file may also contain an RPKI signature. Besides that, this document does not introduce any new security considerations past those already discussed in the RDAP protocol specifications.¶
IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP Extensions Registry at [RDAP-EXTENSIONS]:¶
IANA is requested to register the following value in the Link Relations Registry at [LINK-RELATIONS]:¶
IANA is requested to register the following value in the Media Types Registry at [MEDIA-TYPES]:¶
IANA is requested to register the following value in the Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry at [STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIXES]:¶
The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +csv SHOULD be as specified for "text/csv".¶
The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+csv" SHOULD be processed as follows:¶
For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +csv rules, then as specified in +csv.¶
For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +csv rules, then as specified in "xxx/yyy+csv".¶
For cases not defined in +csv, then as specified in "xxx/yyy+csv".¶
NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior to publication as an RFC.¶
This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.¶
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".¶
Mark Kosters provided initial support and encouragement for this work, along with the [RFC9632] authors. Gavin Brown suggested using a web link instead of a simple URL string to specify a geofeed file URL. Andy Newton, James Gould, Scott Hollenbeck, and Mario Loffredo also provided valuable feedback for this document.¶
(Remove this section before publication.)¶