Registration Protocols Extensions (regext)
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Singh
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9877 ARIN
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track T. Harrison
Expires: 7 December 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721 APNIC
5 June
October 2025
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed Data
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-14
Abstract
This document defines a new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts
geofeed URLs for its IP network objects. It also defines a new media
type and a new link relation type for the associated link objects
included in responses.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum 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 six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 7 December 2025.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9877.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Media Type for a Geofeed Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Geofeed Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Extension Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Link Relations Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Media Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.4. Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. RIPE NCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.3. Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.4. Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.5. Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.6. Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.7. Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.8. Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.9. Changes from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.10. Changes from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.11. Changes from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.12. Changes from 11 to 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.13. Changes from 12 to 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.14. Changes from 13 to 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1.
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2.
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
[RFC8805] and [RFC9632] detail the IP geolocation feed (commonly
known as 'geofeed') file format and associated access mechanisms.
While [RFC9632] describes how a registry can make geofeed URLs
available by way of a Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
[RFC2622] service, the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have
deployed Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) ([RFC7480],
[RFC7481], [RFC9082], [RFC9083]) services as successors to RPSL for
Internet number resource registrations, and maintaining feature
parity between the two services supports client transition from RPSL
to RDAP in this context. To that end, this document specifies how
geofeed URLs can be accessed through RDAP. It defines a new RDAP
extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts
geofeed URLs for its IP network objects, as well as a new media type
and a new link relation type for the associated link objects.
Fetching and making use of geofeed data is out of scope for the
purposes of this document. See [RFC8805] and [RFC9632] for further
details.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to
illustrate element relationships, and they are not a required feature
of this specification.
"..." in examples is used as shorthand for elements defined outside
of this document.
2. Specification
2.1. Media Type for a Geofeed Link
[RFC9632] requires a geofeed file to be a UTF-8 [RFC3629] comma-
separated values (CSV) file, with a series of "#" comments at the end
for the optional Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI, [RFC6480]) (RPKI) [RFC6480]
signature. At first glance, the "text/csv" media type seems like a
good candidate for a geofeed file, since it supports the "#" comments
needed for including the RPKI signature.
However, although the CSV geofeed data could be viewed directly by a
user such that the "text/csv" media type was appropriate, the most
common use case will involve it being processed by some sort of
application first, in order to facilitate subsequent IP address
lookup operations. Therefore, using a new "application" media type
with a "geofeed" subtype (Section 4.2.5 of [RFC6838]) for the geofeed
data is preferable to using "text/csv".
To that end, this document registers a new "application/geofeed+csv"
media type in the IANA Media Types Registry "Media Types" registry (see Section 6.3), and
a new "+csv" suffix in the IANA Structured "Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry Suffixes" registry
(see Section 6.4).
2.2. Geofeed Link
An RDAP server that hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects
(Section 5.4 of [RFC9083]) may include link objects for those geofeed
URLs in IP network objects in its responses. These link objects are
added to the "links" member of each object (Section 4.2 of
[RFC9083]).
In RDAP, the "value", "rel", and "href" JSON members are required for
any link object. Additionally, for a geofeed link object, the "type"
JSON member is RECOMMENDED. The geofeed-specific components of a
link object are like so:
* "rel" --
"rel": The link relation type is set to "geofeed". This is a new
link relation type for IP geolocation feed data, registered in the
IANA Link Relations Registry "Link Relations" registry (see Section 6.2) by this document.
* "href" --
"href": The target URL is set to the HTTPS URL of the geofeed file
(Section 6 of [RFC9632]) for an IP network.
* "type" --
"type": "application/geofeed+csv" (see Section 2.1).
An IP network object returned by an RDAP server MAY contain zero or
more geofeed link objects, though typically an IP network will have
either no such link objects zero or only one. The scenario where more than one geofeed
link object could be returned is when the server is able to represent
that data in multiple languages. In such a case, the server SHOULD
provide "hreflang" members for the geofeed link objects. Except for
the multiple-languages scenario, the server SHOULD NOT return more
than one geofeed link object.
2.3. Extension Identifier
This document defines a new extension identifier, "geofeed1", for use
by servers that host geofeed URLs for their IP network objects and
include geofeed URL link objects in their responses to clients in
accordance with Section 2.2. A server that uses this extension
identifier MUST include it in the "rdapConformance" array
(Section 4.1 of [RFC9083]) for any lookup or search response
containing an IP network object, as well as in the help response.
Here is an elided example for of this inclusion:
{
"rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", "geofeed1", ... ],
...
}
If the server includes "geofeed1" in the "rdapConformance" array,
then for any response concerning a particular IP network object for
which the server possesses a geofeed URL and is able to return it to
the client (i.e. (i.e., the server is not compelled to omit it due to
regulatory constraints or similar), the server MUST include a
corresponding geofeed link object in the response.
An RDAP server may make use of the "application/geofeed+csv" media
type and the "geofeed" link relation defined in this specification in
its responses without including the "geofeed1" extension identifier
in those responses, because RDAP servers are free to use any
registered media type or link relation in a standard response without
implementing any particular extension. The additional value of
including the extension identifier in the "rdapConformance" array is
that it signals to the client that the server hosts geofeed URLs for
its IP network objects. This is useful where a client receives an IP
network object without a geofeed link object, because in that case
the client can infer that no geofeed data is available for that
object, since the server would have provided it if it were available.
Although a server may use registered media types in its link objects
without any restrictions, it is useful to define new RDAP extensions
for those media types in order for the server to communicate to
clients that it will make data for that type accessible, in accessible. This is the
same
way that as what the server does with the "geofeed1" extension
identifier.
The "1" in "geofeed1" denotes that this is version 1 of the geofeed
extension. New versions of the geofeed extension will use different
extension identifiers.
2.4. Example
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": "geofeed",
"href": "https://example.com/geofeed",
"type": "application/geofeed+csv"
},
...
],
...
}
3. Operational Considerations
When an RDAP client performs an IP network lookup, per Section 3.1.1
of [RFC9082], the RDAP server is required to return the most-specific
IP network object that covers the IP address range provided by the
client. That IP network object may not have an associated geofeed
link, but it is possible that a less-specific IP network object does
have such a link. Clients attempting to retrieve geofeed data for a
given IP address range via RDAP should consider whether to retrieve
the parent object for the initial response (and so on, recursively)
in the event that the initial response does not contain geofeed data.
Conversely, server operators should consider interface options for
resource holders in order to support the provisioning of geofeed
links for all networks covered by the associated data.
It is common for a resource holder to maintain a single geofeed file
containing the geofeed data for all of their resources. The resource
holder then updates each of their network object registrations to
refer to that single geofeed file. As with geofeed references in
inetnum objects (per [RFC9632]), clients who find a geofeed link
object within an IP network object and opt to retrieve the data from
the associated link MUST ignore any entry where the entry's IP
address range is outside the IP network object's address range.
Section 3.2 of [RFC8805] recommends that consumers of geofeed data
verify that the publisher of the data is authoritative for the
relevant resources. The RDAP bootstrap process ([RFC9224]) [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.
To prevent undue load on RDAP and geofeed servers, clients fetching
geofeed data using these mechanisms MUST NOT do frequent real-time
lookups. See Section 6 of [RFC9632] for further details.
4. Privacy Considerations
All the privacy considerations from Section 7 of [RFC9632] apply to
this document. In particular, the service provider publishing the
geofeed file MUST take care not to expose the location of any
individual.
Many jurisdictions have laws or regulations that restrict the use of
"personal data", per the definition in [RFC6973]. Given that,
registry operators should ascertain whether the regulatory
environment in which they operate permits implementation of the
functionality defined in this document.
5. Security Considerations
Section 6 of [RFC9632] documents several security considerations that
are equally relevant in the RDAP context.
A geofeed file MUST be referenced with an HTTPS URL, per Section 6 of
[RFC9632]. The geofeed file may also contain an RPKI signature, per
Section 5 of [RFC9632].
Besides that, this document does not introduce any new security
considerations past those already discussed in the RDAP protocol
specifications ([RFC7481], [RFC9560]).
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry
IANA is requested to register has registered the following value in the RDAP
Extensions Registry "RDAP Extensions"
registry at [RDAP-EXTENSIONS]:
*
Extension identifier: Identifier: geofeed1
*
Registry operator: Operator: Any
* Published specification: This document.
*
Specification: RFC 9877
Contact: IETF, iesg@ietf.org
* IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: Usage: This extension describes version 1 of a method to
access the IP geolocation feed data through RDAP.
6.2. Link Relations Registry
IANA is requested to register has registered the following value in the Link
Relations Registry "Link Relations"
registry at [LINK-RELATIONS]:
*
Relation Name: geofeed
*
Description: Refers to a resource with IP geofeed location
information related to the link context.
*
Reference: This document. RFC 9877
6.3. Media Types Registry
IANA is requested to register has registered the following value media type in the Media Types
Registry "Media Types"
registry at [MEDIA-TYPES]:
*
Type name: application
*
Subtype name: geofeed+csv
*
Required parameters: N/A
*
Optional parameters: "charset" is an optional parameter for "text/
csv", but it is not used for "application/geofeed+csv" because the
geofeed content is always in UTF-8 (Section 2.1 of [RFC8805]).
*
Encoding considerations: See Section 2 of [RFC9632].
*
Security considerations: See Section 5 of this document.
* RFC 9877.
Interoperability considerations: There are no known interoperability
problems regarding this media format.
*
Published specification: This document.
* RFC 9877.
Applications that use this media type: Implementations of the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed
Data. Furthermore, any application that processes the CSV geofeed
data.
*
Additional information: This media type is a product of the IETF
REGEXT Working Group. The REGEXT charter, information on the
REGEXT mailing list, and other documents produced by the REGEXT
Working Group can be found at [REGEXT].
*
Person & email address to contact for further information:
REGEXT Working Group, regext@ietf.org
* Group <regext@ietf.org>
Intended usage: COMMON
*
Restrictions on usage: None
*
Authors: Tom Harrison, Jasdip Singh
*
Author/Change controller: IETF
* Provisional Registration: No
6.4. Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry
IANA is requested to register has registered the following value in the Structured "Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry
Suffixes" registry at [STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIXES]:
*
Name: Comma-Separated Values (CSV)
*
+suffix: +csv
*
References: [RFC4180], [RFC7111]
*
Encoding Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
*
Interoperability Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
*
Fragment Identifier Considerations: The syntax and semantics of
fragment identifiers specified for +csv SHOULD be as specified for
"text/csv".
The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific
"xxx/yyy+csv" SHOULD be processed as follows:
* For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier
resolves per the +csv rules, then as specified for +csv.
* For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier does
not resolve per the +csv rules, then as specified for
"xxx/yyy+csv".
* For cases not defined in +csv, then as specified for "xxx/
yyy+csv".
*
"xxx/yyy+csv".
Security Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
*
Contact: IETF, iesg@ietf.org
* IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Author/Change controller: IETF
10.
7. References
10.1.
7.1. 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>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[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>.
[RFC9224] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP) Service", STD 95, RFC 9224,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9224, March 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224>.
[RFC9632] Bush, R., Candela, M., Kumari, W., and R. Housley,
"Finding and Using Geofeed Data", RFC 9632,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9632, August 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9632>.
10.2.
7.2. Informative References
[LINK-RELATIONS]
IANA, "Link Relations",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/>.
[MEDIA-TYPES]
IANA, "Media Types",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/>.
[RDAP-EXTENSIONS]
IANA, "RDAP Extensions",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/>.
[REGEXT] IETF, "Registration Protocols Extensions", Extensions (regext)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/regext/>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2622, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2622>.
[RFC4180] Shafranovich, Y., "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-
Separated Values (CSV) Files", RFC 4180,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4180, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4180>.
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,
February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[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>.
[RFC7111] Hausenblas, M., Wilde, E., and J. Tennison, "URI Fragment
Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type", RFC 7111,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7111, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7111>.
[RFC7480] Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP Usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
RFC 7480, DOI 10.17487/RFC7480, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7480>.
[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>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8805] Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W.
Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation
Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8805>.
[RFC9560] Hollenbeck, S., "Federated Authentication for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Using OpenID
Connect", RFC 9560, DOI 10.17487/RFC9560, April 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9560>.
[STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIXES]
IANA, "Structured Syntax Suffixes",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-
suffix/>.
8.
Acknowledgements
Mark Kosters provided initial support and encouragement for this
work, along with the [RFC9632] authors. Gavin Brown suggested using
a web link instead of a simple URL string to specify a geofeed file
URL. Andy Newton, James Gould, Scott Hollenbeck, Mario Loffredo,
Orie Steele, Alexey Melnikov, Mark Nottingham, Rifaat Shekh-Yusuf, Shekh-Yusef,
Dale R. Worley, Dhruv Dhody, Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani,
Ketan Talaulikar, and Éric Vyncke provided valuable feedback for this
document.
Authors' Addresses
Jasdip Singh
ARIN
Email: jasdips@arin.net
Tom Harrison
APNIC
Email: tomh@apnic.net