Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft M. Martinelli
Intended status: Standards Track IIT-CNR/
Expires: December 14, 2019 S. Hollenbeck
Verisign Labs
June 12, 2019

Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Parameters for Result Sorting and Paging


The Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) does not include core functionality for clients to provide sorting and paging parameters for control of large result sets. This omission can lead to unpredictable server processing of queries and client processing of responses. This unpredictability can be greatly reduced if clients can provide servers with their preferences for managing large responses. This document describes RDAP query extensions that allow clients to specify their preferences for sorting and paging result sets.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

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 December 14, 2019.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2019 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 ( 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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The availability of functionality for result sorting and paging provides benefits to both clients and servers in the implementation of RESTful services [REST]. These benefits include:

Approaches to implementing features for result sorting and paging can be grouped into two main categories:

  1. Sorting and paging are implemented through the introduction of additional parameters in the query string (i.e. ODATA protocol [OData-Part1]);

  2. Information related to the number of results and the specific portion of the result set to be returned, in addition to a set of ready-made links for the result set scrolling, are inserted in the HTTP header of the request/response.

However, there are some drawbacks associated with use of the HTTP header. First, the header properties cannot be set directly from a web browser. Moreover, in an HTTP session, the information on the status (i.e. the session identifier) is usually inserted in the header or in the cookies, while the information on the resource identification or the search type is included in the query string. The second approach is therefore not compliant with the HTTP standard [RFC7230]. As a result, this document describes a specification based on use of query parameters.

Currently the RDAP protocol [RFC7482] defines two query types:

While the lookup query does not raise issues in the response management, the search query can potentially generate a large result set that could be truncated according to the server limits. In addition, it is not possible to obtain the total number of the objects found that might be returned in a search query response [RFC7483]. Lastly, there is no way to specify sort criteria to return the most relevant objects at the beginning of the result set. Therefore, the client might traverse the whole result set to find the relevant objects or, due to truncation, could not find them at all.

The specification described in this document extends RDAP query capabilities to enable result sorting and paging, by adding new query parameters that can be applied to RDAP search path segments. The service is implemented using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] and the conventions described in RFC 7480 [RFC7480].

The implementation of the new parameters is technically feasible, as operators for counting, sorting and paging rows are currently supported by the major RDBMSs.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. RDAP Query Parameter Specification

The new query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined in RFC 7482 [RFC7482]. They are as follows:

Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] is used in the following sections to describe the formal syntax of these new parameters.

2.1. Sorting and Paging Metadata

According to most advanced principles in REST design, collectively known as HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State) ([HATEOAS]), a client entering a REST application through an initial URI should use the server-provided links to dynamically discover available actions and access the resources it needs. In this way, the client is not requested to have prior knowledge of the service and, consequently, to hard code the URIs of different resources. This would allow the server to make URI changes as the API evolves without breaking the clients. Definitively, a REST service should be as self-descriptive as possible.

Therefore, servers implementing the query parameters described in this specification SHOULD provide additional information in their responses about both the available sorting criteria and the possible pagination. Such information is collected in two new data structures named, respectively, "sorting_metadata" and "paging_metadata".

Obviously, both the new data structures are OPTIONAL because their presence in the response not only depends on the implementation of sorting and paging query capabilities but also on some situations related to the results. For example, it is quite natural to expect that the "paging_metadata" element will not be present at the last result page when the server implements only the forward pagination.

The "sorting_metadata" structure contains the following properties:

At least one between "currentSort" and "availableSorts" MUST be present.

The "paging_metadata" structure contains the following fields:

At least one between "totalCount" and "links" MUST be present.

2.2. "count" Parameter

Currently the RDAP protocol does not allow a client to determine the total number of the results in a query response when the result set is truncated. This is rather inefficient because the user cannot evaluate the query precision and, at the same time, cannot receive information that could be relevant.

The "count" parameter provides additional functionality (Figure 1) that allows a client to request information from the server that specifies the total number of elements matching the search pattern.

Figure 1: Example of RDAP query reporting the "count" parameter

The ABNF syntax is the following:

A trueValue means that the server MUST provide the total number of the objects in the "totalCount" field of the "paging_metadata" element (Figure 2). A falseValue means that the server MUST NOT provide this number.

  "rdapConformance": [
  "paging_metadata": {
    "totalCount": 73
  "domainSearchResults": [

Figure 2: Example of RDAP response with "paging_metadata" element containing the "totalCount" field

2.3. "sort" Parameter

The RDAP protocol does not provide any capability to specify results sort criteria. A server could implement a default sorting scheme according to the object class, but this feature is not mandatory and might not meet user requirements. Sorting can be addressed by the client, but this solution is rather inefficient. Sorting features provided by the RDAP server could help avoid truncation of relevant results.

The "sort" parameter allows the client to ask the server to sort the results according to the values of one or more properties and according to the sort direction of each property. The ABNF syntax is the following:

"a" means that the ascending sort MUST be applied, "d" means that the descending sort MUST be applied. If the sort direction is absent, an ascending sort MUST be applied (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Examples of RDAP query reporting the "sort" parameter

If the "sort" parameter reports an allowed sorting property, it MUST be provided in the "currentSort" field of the "sorting_metadata" element.

2.3.1. Sorting Properties Declaration

In the "sort" parameter ABNF syntax, property-ref represents a reference to a property of an RDAP object. Such a reference could be expressed by using a JSON Path. The JSON Path in a JSON document [RFC8259] is equivalent to the XPath [W3C.CR-xpath-31-20161213] in a XML document. For example, the JSON Path to select the value of the ASCII name inside an RDAP domain object is "$.ldhName", where $ identifies the root of the document (DOM). Another way to select a value inside a JSON document is the JSON Pointer [RFC6901]. While JSON Path or JSON Pointer are both standard ways to select any value inside JSON data, neither is particularly easy to use (e.g. "$.events[?(@.eventAction='registration')].eventDate" is the JSON Path expression of the registration date in an RDAP domain object).

Therefore, this specification provides a definition of property-ref in terms of RDAP properties. However, not all the RDAP properties are suitable to be used in sort criteria, such as:

On the contrary, some properties expressed as values of other properties (e.g. registration date) could be used in such a context.

In the following, a list of properties an RDAP server MAY implement is presented. The properties are divided in two groups: object common properties and object specific properties.

The correspondence between the sorting properties and the RDAP fields is shown in Table 1:

Sorting properties definition
Object class Sorting property RDAP property RFC7483 RFC6350 RFC8605
Searchable objects Common properties eventAction values suffixed by "Date" 4.5.
Domain ldhName ldhName 5.3.
Nameserver ldhName ldhName 5.2.
ipV4 v4 ipAddress 5.2.
ipV6 v6 ipAddress 5.2.
Entity handle handle 5.1.
fn vcard fn 5.1. 6.2.1
org vcard org 5.1. 6.6.4
voice vcard tel with type="voice" 5.1. 6.4.1
email vcard email 5.1. 6.4.2
country country name in vcard adr 5.1. 6.3.1
cc country code in vcard adr 5.1. 3.1
city locality in vcard adr 5.1. 6.3.1

With regard to the definitions in Table 1, some further considerations must be made to disambiguate cases where the RDAP property is multivalued:

Each RDAP provider MAY define other sorting properties than those shown in this document.

The "jsonPath" field in the "sorting_metadata" element is used to clarify the RDAP field the sorting property refers to. The mapping between the sorting properties and the JSON Paths of the RDAP fields is shown in Table 2. The JSON Paths are provided according to the Goessner v.0.8.0 specification ([GOESSNER-JSON-PATH]):

Sorting properties - JSON Path Mapping
Object class Sorting property JSON Path
Searchable objects registrationDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="registration")].eventDate
reregistrationDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="reregistration")].eventDate
lastChangedDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="lastChanged")].eventDate
expirationDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="expiration")].eventDate
deletionDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="deletion")].eventDate
reinstantiationDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="reinstantiation")].eventDate
transferDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="transfer")].eventDate
lockedDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="locked")].eventDate
unlockedDate "$.domainSearchResults[*].events[?(@.eventAction=="unlocked")].eventDate
Domain ldhName $.domainSearchResults[*].ldhName
Nameserver ldhName $.nameserverSearchResults[*].ldhName
ipV4 $.nameserverSearchResults[*].ipAddresses.v4[0]
ipV6 $.nameserverSearchResults[*].ipAddresses.v6[0]
Entity handle $.entitySearchResults[*].handle
fn $.entitySearchResults[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]="fn")][3]
org $.entitySearchResults[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]="org")][3]
voice $.entitySearchResults[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=="tel" && @[1].type=="voice")][3]
email $.entitySearchResults[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=="email")][3]
country $.entitySearchResults[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=="adr")][3][6]
cc $.entitySearchResults[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=="adr")][1].cc
city $.entitySearchResults[*].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=="adr")][3][3]

2.3.2. Representing Sorting Links

An RDAP server MAY use the "links" array of the "sorting_metadata" element to provide ready-made references [RFC8288] to the available sort criteria (Figure 4). Each link represents a reference to an alternate view of the results.

  "rdapConformance": [
  "sorting_metadata": {
     "currentSort": "ldhName",
     "availableSorts": [
     "property": "registrationDate",
     "jsonPath": "$.domainSearchResults[*]
     "default": false,
     "links": [
        "value": "*
        "rel": "alternate",
        "href": "*
        "title": "Result Ascending Sort Link",
        "type": "application/rdap+json"
        "value": "*
        "rel": "alternate",
        "href": "*
        "title": "Result Descending Sort Link",
        "type": "application/rdap+json"
  "domainSearchResults": [

Figure 4: Example of a "sorting_metadata" instance to implement result sorting

2.4. "cursor" Parameter

An RDAP query could return a response with hundreds, even thousands, of objects, especially when partial matching is used. For that reason, the cursor parameter addressing result pagination is defined to make responses easier to handle.

Using limit and offset operators represents the most common way to implement results pagination. Both of them can be used individually:

When limit and offset are used together, they allow to identify a specific portion of the result set. For example, the pair "offset=100,limit=50" returns first 50 objects starting from position 101 of the result set.

However, offset pagination raises some well known drawbacks:

An alternative approach to offset pagination is keyset pagination [SEEK] which consists in adding a query condition that enables the seletion of the only data not yet returned. This method has been taken as the basis for the implementation of a "cursor" parameter [CURSOR] by some REST API providers (e.g. [CURSOR-API1],[CURSOR-API2]). The cursor is an opaque URL-safe string representing a logical pointer to the first result of the next page (Figure 5). Basically, the cursor is the encryption of the key value identifying the last row of the current page. For example, the cursor value "a2V5PXRoZWxhc3Rkb21haW5vZnRoZXBhZ2UuY29t=" is the mere Base64 encoding of "".

The ABNF syntax is the following:

Figure 5: An example of RDAP query reporting the "cursor" parameter

Nevertheless, even cursor pagination can be troublesome:

Furthermore, in the RDAP context, some additional considerations can be made:

Ultimately, both pagination methods have benefits and drawbacks. That said, the cursor parameter can be used to encode not only the key value but also the information about offset pagination. For example, the cursor value "b2Zmc2V0PTEwMCxsaW1pdD01MAo=" is the mere Base64 encoding of "offset=100,limit=50". This solution lets RDAP providers to implement a pagination method according to their needs, the user access levels, the submitted queries. In addition, servers can change the method over time without announcing anything to the clients.

2.4.1. Representing Paging Links

An RDAP server SHOULD use the "links" array of the "paging_metadata" element to provide a ready-made reference [RFC8288] to the next page of the result set (Figure 6). Examples of additional "rel" values a server MAY implements are "first", "last", "prev".

  "rdapConformance": [
  "notices": [
      "title": "Search query limits",
      "type": "result set truncated due to excessive load",
      "description": [
      "search results for domains are limited to 10"
  "paging_metadata": {
    "totalCount": 73,
    "pageCount": 10, 
    "links": [
      "value": "*",
      "rel": "next",
      "href": "*
      "title": "Result Pagination Link",
      "type": "application/rdap+json"
  "domainSearchResults": [

Figure 6: Example of a "paging_metadata" instance to implement cursor pagination

3. Negative Answers

The value constraints for the parameters are defined by their ABNF syntax. Therefore, each request including an invalid value for a parameter SHOULD obtain an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) response code. The same response SHOULD be returned in the following cases:

Optionally, the response MAY include additional information regarding the negative answer in the HTTP entity body.

4. RDAP Conformance

Servers returning the "paging_metadata" element in their response MUST include "paging_level_0" in the rdapConformance array as well as servers returning the "sorting_metadata" element MUST include "sorting_level_0".

5. Implementation Considerations

The implementation of the new parameters is technically feasible, as operators for counting, sorting and paging are currently supported by the major RDBMSs.

Similar operators are completely or partially supported by the most known NoSQL databases (MongoDB, CouchDB, HBase, Cassandra, Hadoop) so the implementation of the new parameters seems to be practicable by servers working without the use of an RDBMS.

Furthermore, both two pagination methods don't require the server to handle the result set in a storage area across the requests since a new result set is generated each time a request is submitted.

6. Implementation Status

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

This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 [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".

6.1. IIT-CNR/

6.2. Google Registry

7. IANA Considerations

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

8. Security Considerations

Security services for the operations specified in this document are described in RFC 7481 [RFC7481].

Search query typically requires more server resources (such as memory, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth) when compared to lookup query. This increases the risk of server resource exhaustion and subsequent denial of service due to abuse. This risk can be mitigated by either restricting search functionality and limiting the rate of search requests. Servers can also reduce their load by truncating the results in the response. However, this last security policy can result in a higher inefficiency if the RDAP server does not provide any functionality to return the truncated results.

The new parameters presented in this document provide the RDAP operators with a way to implement a secure server without penalizing its efficiency. The "count" parameter gives the user a measure to evaluate the query precision and, at the same time, returns a significant information. The "sort" parameter allows the user to obtain the most relevant information at the beginning of the result set. In both cases, the user doesn't need to submit further unnecessary search requests. Finally, the "cursor" parameter enables the user to scroll the result set by submitting a sequence of sustainable queries according to the server limits.

9. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Brian Mountford for his contribution to the development of this document.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[ISO.3166.1988] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the representation of names of countries, 3rd edition", ISO Standard 3166, August 1988.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008.
[RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014.
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B. and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7480, DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015.
[RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015.
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015.
[RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017.
[RFC8605] Hollenbeck, S. and R. Carney, "vCard Format Extensions: ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 8605, DOI 10.17487/RFC8605, May 2019.

10.2. Informative References

[CURSOR] Nimesh, R., "Paginating Real-Time Data with Keyset Pagination", July 2014.
[CURSOR-API1], "facebook for developers - Using the Graph API", July 2017.
[CURSOR-API2], "Pagination", 2017.
[GOESSNER-JSON-PATH] Goessner, S., "JSONPath - XPath for JSON", 2007.
[HATEOAS] Jedrzejewski, B., "HATEOAS - a simple explanation", 2018.
[OData-Part1] Pizzo, M., Handl, R. and M. Zurmuehl, "OData Version 4.0. Part 1: Protocol Plus Errata 03", June 2016.
[REST] Fredrich, T., "RESTful Service Best Practices, Recommendations for Creating Web Services", April 2012.
[RFC6901] Bryan, P., Zyp, K. and M. Nottingham, "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer", RFC 6901, DOI 10.17487/RFC6901, April 2013.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016.
[SEEK], "Faster Pagination in Mysql - Why Order By With Limit and Offset is Slow?", July 2017.
[W3C.CR-xpath-31-20161213] Robie, J., Dyck, M. and J. Spiegel, "XML Path Language (XPath) 3.1", World Wide Web Consortium CR CR-xpath-31-20161213, December 2016.

Appendix A. Change Log

Initial working group version ported from draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-05
Removed both "offset" and "nextOffset" to keep "paging_metadata" consistent between the pagination methods. Renamed "Considerations about Paging Implementation" section in ""cursor" Parameter". Removed "FOR DISCUSSION" items. Provided a more detailed description of both "sorting_metadata" and "paging_metadata" objects.
Removed both "offset" and "limit" parameters. Added ABNF syntax of cursor parameter. Rearranged the layout of some sections. Removed some items from "Informative References" section. Changed "IANA Considerations" section.
Added "cc" to the list of sorting properties in "Sorting Properties Declaration" section. Added RFC8605 to the list of "Informative References".

Authors' Addresses

Mario Loffredo IIT-CNR/ Via Moruzzi,1 Pisa, 56124 IT EMail: URI:
Maurizio Martinelli IIT-CNR/ Via Moruzzi,1 Pisa, 56124 IT EMail: URI:
Scott Hollenbeck Verisign Labs 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 USA EMail: URI: