Network Working Group M. Wullink Internet-Draft SIDN Labs Intended status: Standards Track P. Kowalik Expires: 18 April 2026 DENIC 15 October 2025 RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP) draft-wullink-rpp-core-02 Abstract This document describes the endpoints for the RESTful Provisioning Protocol, used for the provisioning and management of objects in a shared database. 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 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 18 April 2026. 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) 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. Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Request Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Response Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Error handling and relation between HTTP status codes and RPP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Availability for Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Resource Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.3. Poll for Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.4. Delete Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.5. Create Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.6. Delete Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.7. Processes Path Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.7.1. Generic proces interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.7.1.1. Starting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.7.1.2. Cancelling: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.7.1.3. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.7.1.4. Other operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.7.1.5. Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.7.2. Relation to object representation . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.8. Renew Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.9. Transfer Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.9.1. Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.9.2. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.9.3. Cancel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.9.4. Reject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.9.5. Approve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.10. Update Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. Extension Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12.1. Version 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12.2. Version 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 12.3. Version 00 (draft-rpp-core) to 00 (draft-wullink-rpp-core) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 1. Introduction This document describes an Application Programming Interface (API) API based on the HTTP protocol [RFC2616] and the principles of [REST]. Conforming to the REST constraints is generally referred to as being "RESTful". Hence the API is dubbed: "'RESTful Provisioning Protocol" or "RPP" for short. The RPP API is designed to be used for the provisioning and management of objects in a shared database, such as domain names, hosts, and entities. 2. Terminology In this document the following terminology is used. REST - Representational State Transfer ([REST]). An architectural style. RESTful - A RESTful web service is a web service or API implemented using HTTP and the principles of [REST]. EPP RFCs - This is a reference to the EPP version 1.0 specifications [RFC5730], [RFC5731], [RFC5732] and [RFC5733]. RESTful Provisioning Protocol or RPP - The protocol described in this document. URL - A Uniform Resource Locator as defined in [RFC3986]. Resource - An object having a type, data, and possible relationship to other resources, identified by a URL. RPP client - An HTTP user agent performing an RPP request RPP server - An HTTP server responsible for processing requests and returning results in any supported media type. 3. 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]. Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 In examples, lines starting with "C:" represent data sent by a RPP client and lines starting with "S:" represent data returned by a RPP server. Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not REQUIRED features of the protocol. All example requests assume a RPP server using HTTP version 2 is listening on the standard HTTPS port on host rpp.example. An authorization token has been provided by an out of band process and MUST be used by the client to authenticate each request. 4. Request Headers A RPP request does not always require a request message body. The information conveyed by the HTTP method, URL, and request headers may be sufficient for the server to be able to successfully processes a request. However, the client MUST include a request message body when the server requires additional attributes to be present in the request message. The RPP HTTP headers listed below use the "RPP-" prefix, following the recommendations in [RFC6648]. * RPP-Cltrid: The client transaction identifier is the equivalent of the clTRID element defined in [RFC5730] and MUST be used accordingly, when the HTTP message body does not contain an EPP request that includes a cltrid. * RPP-Authorization: The client MAY use this header to send authorization information in the format , similar to the HTTP Authorization header, defined in [RFC9110, Section 11.6.2]. The indicates the type of authorization being used. For EPP object authorization information, for example the authorization information used for domain names described in [RFC5731, Section 2.3], a new authinfo method is defined and MUST be used. The defines the following comma separated fields: - value (REQUIRED): Base64 encoded EPP password-based authorization information. Base64 encoding is used to prevent problems when special characters are present that may conflict with the format rules for the Authorization header. - roid (OPTIONAL): A Roid as defined in [RFC5731], [RFC5733], and [RFC5730]. The roid is used to identify the object for which the authorization information is provided. If the roid is not provided, then the server MUST assume that the authorization information is linked to the object identified by the URL of the request. Use of the RPP-Authorization header: RPP-Authorization: authinfo value=TXkgU2VjcmV0IFRva2Vu, roid=REG-XYZ-12345 Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 The value of the RPP-Authorization header is case sensitive. The server MUST reject requests where the case of the header value does not match the expected case. The RPP-Authorization header is specific to the user agent and MUST NOT be cached, as recommended by Section 16.4.2, the server MUST use the correct HTTP cache directives to prevent caching of the RPP-Authorization header. 5. Response Headers The server HTTP response contains a status code, headers, and MAY contain an RPP response message in the message body. HTTP headers are used to transmit additional data to the client and MAY be used to send RPP process related data to the client. HTTP headers used by RPP MUST use the "RPP-" prefix, the following response headers have been defined for RPP. * RPP-Svtrid: This header is the equivalent of the "svTRID" element defined in [RFC5730] and MUST be used accordingly when the RPP response does not contain an EPP response in the HTTP message body. If an HTTP message body with the EPP XML equivalent "svTRID" exists, both values MUST be consistent. * RPP-Cltrid: This header is the equivalent of the "clTRID" element defined in [RFC5730] and MUST be used accordingly when the RPP response does not contain an EPP response in the HTTP message body. If the contents of the HTTP message body contains a "clTRID" value, then both values MUST be consistent. * RPP-Code: This header is the equivalent of the EPP result code defined in [RFC5730] and MUST be used accordingly. This header MUST be added to all responses and MAY be used by the client for easy access to the result code, without having to parse the HTTP response message body. For the EPP codes related to session management (1500, 2500, 2501 and 2502) there are no corresponding RPP codes. In order for RPP to be backwards compatible with EPP, RPP will use 5-digit coding of the result codes, where first digit will denote origin specification of the result codes. For [RFC5730] Result Codes the leading digit MUST be "0". For RPP result codes the leading digit MUST be "1". For avoidance of confusion RPP MUST not define new codes with the same semantic meaning as already defined in EPP. For RPP codes the remaining 4 digits MUST keep the same semantics as [RFC5730] Result Codes. Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 * RPP-Queue-Size: Return the number of unacknowledged messages in the client message queue. The server MAY include this header in all RPP responses. 6. Error handling and relation between HTTP status codes and RPP codes RPP leverages standard HTTP status codes to reflect the outcome of RPP operations. The RPP result codes are based on the EPP result codes defined in [RFC5730]. This allows clients to handle responses generically using common HTTP patterns. While the HTTP status code provides the primary, high-level outcome, the specific RPP result code MUST still be provided in the RPP-Code HTTP header for detailed diagnostics. The mapping strategy is to use the most specific HTTP code that accurately reflects the operation's result. For common and well-defined outcomes, a specific HTTP status code is used. For example, an attempt to access a non-existent resource (EPP code 2302) MUST return 404 Not Found, and an attempt to create a resource that already exists (EPP code 2303) MUST return 409 Conflict. This allows a client to handle these common situations based on the HTTP code alone. For all other failures, a generic HTTP status code is used. Client- side errors (e.g., syntax, parameter, or policy violations) MUST return 400 Bad Request. Server-side failures MUST return 500 Internal Server Error. The server MUST return HTTP status codes, following the mapping rules in Table 1. Table 1: RPP result code and HTTP Status-Code mapping. +===========+==============+===============================================+ |HTTP |Description |Corresponding RPP result code(s) | |Status-Code| | | +===========+==============+===============================================+ |Success | | | |(2xx) | | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |200 OK |The request |01000 (in all cases not specified | | |was successful|otherwise),01300,01301 | | |(e.g., for GET| | | |or UPDATE). | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |201 Created|The resource |01000 for resource creating requests (POST/PUT)| | |was created | | Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 | |successfully. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |202 |The request |01001 | |Accepted |was accepted | | | |for | | | |asynchronous | | | |processing. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |204 No |The resource |01000 for DELETE | |Content |was deleted | | | |successfully. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |Client | | | |Errors | | | |(4xx) | | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |400 Bad |Generic |02000-02005,02104-02106,02300-02301,02304-02308| |Request |client-side | | | |error (syntax,| | | |parameters, | | | |policy). | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |403 |Authentication|02200-02202 | |Forbidden |or | | | |authorization | | | |failed. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |404 Not |The requested |02303 | |Found |resource does | | | |not exist. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |409 |The resource |02302 | |Conflict |could not be | | | |created | | | |because it | | | |already | | | |exists. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |Server | | | |Errors | | | |(5xx) | | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |500 |Generic |02400 | |Internal |server-side | | |Server |error; command| | |Error |failed. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ |501 Not |The requested |02100-02103 | Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 |Implemented|command or | | | |feature is not| | | |implemented. | | +-----------+--------------+-----------------------------------------------+ Table 1 Some EPP result codes, like 01500, 02500, 02501 and 02502 are related to session management and therefore not applicable to a sessionless RPP protocol. 7. Endpoints Endpoints are described using URI Templates [RFC6570] relative to a discoverable base URL, as recommended by [RFC9205]. Some RPP endpoints do not require a request and/or response message. The RPP endpoints are defined using the following URI Template syntax: * {c}: An abbreviation for {collection}: this MUST be substituted with "domains", "hosts", "entities" or another collection of objects. * {i}: An abbreviation for an object identifier, this MUST be substituted with the value of a domain name, hostname, contact-id or a message-id or any other defined object. A RPP client MAY use the HTTP GET method for executing informational request only when no request data has to be added to the HTTP message body. Sending content using an HTTP GET request is discouraged in [RFC9110], there exists no generally defined semantics for content received in a GET request. When an RPP object requires additional information, the client MUST use the HTTP POST method and add the query command content to the HTTP message body. 7.1. Availability for Creation The Availability for Creation endpoint is used to check whether an object can be successfully provisioned. Two distinct methods are defined for checking the availability of provisioning of an object, the first method uses the HEAD method for a quick check to find out if the object can be provisioned. The second method uses the GET method to retrieve additional information about the object's availability for provisioning, for example about pricing or additional requirements to be able to provision the requested object. Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 When the client uses the HTTP HEAD method, the server MUST respond with an HTTP status code 200 (OK) if the object can be provisioned or with an HTTP status code 404 (Not Found) if the object cannot be provisioned. When the client uses the HTTP GET method, the server MUST respond with an HTTP status code 200 (OK) if the object can be provisioned. The server MUST include a message body containing more detailed availability information, for example about pricing or additional requirements to be able to provision the requested object. The message body MAY be and empty JSON object if no additional information is applicable. If the object cannot be provisioned then the server MUST return an HTTP status code 404 (Not Found) and include a problem statement in the message body. As an extension point the server MAY define and the client MAY use additional HTTP query parameters to further specify the check operation or the kind of response information that shall be returned. For example Registry Fee Extension [RFC8748] defines a possibility to request certain currency, only certain commands or periods. Such functionality would add query parameters, which could be used with GET request to receive additional pricing information with the response. HEAD request would not be affected in this case. The server MUST respond with the same HTTP status code if the same URL is requested with HEAD and with GET. - Request: HEAD|GET {collection}/{id}/availability - Request message: None - Response message: Optional availability response Example request for a domain name that is not available for provisioning: HEAD domains/foo.example/availability HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Example response: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 HTTP/2 404 Not Found Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-code: 01000 Content-Length: 0 7.2. Resource Information The Object Info request MUST use the HTTP GET method on a resource identifying an object instance. If the object has authorization information attached then the client MUST use an empty message body and include the RPP-Authorization HTTP header. If the authorization is linked to a database object the client MUST also include the roid in the RPP-Authorization header. The client MAY also use a message body that includes the authorization information, the client MUST then not use the RPP-Authorization header. * Request: GET {collection}/{id} * Request message: Optional * Response message: Info response Example request for an object not using authorization information. GET domains/foo.example HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Example request using RPP-Authorization header for an object that has attached authorization information. GET domains/foo.example HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-Authorization: authinfo value=TXkgU2VjcmV0IFRva2Vu Example Info response: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 424 Content-Type: application/rpp+json Content-Language: en RPP-code: 01000 TODO: JSON message here 7.3. Poll for Messages The messages endpoint is used for retrieving messages stored on the server for the client to process. * Request: GET /messages * Request message: None * Response message: Poll response The client MUST use the HTTP GET method on the messages resource collection to request the message at the head of the queue. Example request: GET messages HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Example response: HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 312 Content-Type: application/rpp+json Content-Language: en RPP-code: 01301 TODO 7.4. Delete Message * Request: DELETE /messages/{id} * Request message: None * Response message: Poll Ack response Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 The client MUST use the HTTP DELETE method to acknowledge receipt of a message from the queue. The "msgID" attribute of a received RPP Poll message MUST be included in the message resource URL, using the {id} path element. The server MUST use RPP headers to return the RPP result code and the number of messages left in the queue. The server MUST NOT add content to the HTTP message body of a successful response, the server may add content to the message body of an error response. Example request: DELETE messages/12345 HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Example response: HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Language: en RPP-code: 01000 RPP-Queue-Size: 0 RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Content-Length: 145 TODO 7.5. Create Resource * Request: POST {collection} * Request message: Object Create request * Response message: Object Create response The client MUST use the HTTP POST method to create a new object resource. If the RPP request results in a newly created object, then the server MUST return HTTP status code 200 (OK). The server MUST add the "Location" header to the response, the value of this header MUST be the URL for the newly created resource. Example Domain Create request: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 POST domains HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Content-Type: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en Content-Length: 220 TODO Example Domain Create response: HTTP/2 200 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Language: en Content-Length: 642 Content-Type: application/rpp+json Location: https://rpp.example/domains/foo.example RPP-code: 01000 TODO 7.6. Delete Resource * Request: DELETE {collection}/{id} * Request message: Optional * Response message: Status The client MUST the HTTP DELETE method and a resource identifying a unique object instance. The server MUST return HTTP status code 200 (OK) if the resource was deleted successfully. Example Domain Delete request: DELETE domains/foo.example HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Example Domain Delete response: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 13] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 80 RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-code: 01000 TODO 7.7. Processes Path Segment Each provisioning object may be related to one or more running processes, such as a transfer or deletion. Each process can have its own data, which is distinct from the data of the provisioning object itself. The processes can be started, stopped, or interacted with using their own specific set of representations and operations. All processes related to a provisioning object in RPP MUST exist under the /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name} path. The server operator MAY support direct access to process resources using server generated identifier. Such resource MAY be accessible using following URL: /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/{process_id}, where process_id is the process identifier. A process MAY also expose a resource at /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/latest to access and interact with the latest process instance. In case server offers any access to process information of given process name, the access to the last instance using /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/latest URL is MANDATORY. The server operator MAY decide which processes such resources exist for, whether they only exist for the currently running processes or also for completed or cancelled processes. The period for which completed processes remain available for retrieval is defined by server policy. 7.7.1. Generic proces interface A generic interface for interacting with the processes is defined as follows: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 14] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 7.7.1.1. Starting: POST /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name} The payload of such a request contains process-specific input information. A started process MAY create a resource to access and interact with the process instance. In such case the response MUST be a 201 Created with a Location header pointing to the created resource together with the process state representation. The created resource can be made accessible both using the latest mnemonic under a URL /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/latest or using a process id under a URL /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/{process_id}. When a process is created, executed and immediately completed by the server, a 201 Created response MAY still be provided together with the representation of the process result. Server MAY decide not to expose any resource for interaction with the created process, in such case a 200 OK MUST be provided. Example: POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/renewals HTTP/2 ... other headers removed for bravity ... { "duration": "P2Y" } 7.7.1.2. Cancelling: A client MAY use the "latest" mnemonic to cancel the latest process instance, in such case the request MUST be: DELETE /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/latest If the client wants to cancel a specific process instance, the request MUST be: DELETE /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/{process_id} This request is intended to stop the running process. The server MUST return a 204 response if the process has been stopped and the resource is gone, or a 200 response if the process has been stopped but the resource remains. Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 7.7.1.3. Status A client MAY use the "latest" mnemonic to request the latest process instance, in such case the request MUST be: GET /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/latest If the client wants to retrieve data of a specific process instance, the request MUST be: GET /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/{process_id} The request retrieves the representation of the task status. If no task is running, the server MAY return the status of the completed task or return a 404 response. 7.7.1.4. Other operations Other operations on a process can be performed by adding path segments to the /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/latest or /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/{process_id} URL path. 7.7.1.5. Listing A server MAY implement a listing facility for some or all, current or past processes. The following URL structure and HTTP method MAY be exposed by the server and MUST be used by the client to retrieve process list filtered by process name: GET /{collection}/{id}/processes/{process_name}/ The following URL structure and HTTP method MAY be exposed by the server and MUST be used by the client to retrieve full process list independent of the process name: GET /{collection}/{id}/processes/ It is up to server policy to define the type of processes and state, running or completed, made available for the client. A server MAY also choose not implement this end point at all returning either the HTPP status code 404 Not Found or a 501 Not Implemented status code. Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 16] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 7.7.2. Relation to object representation In certain situations a resource creation may require additional process data or implicitly start an asynchronous process with own inputs, lifecycle and state. In these cases, the representation sent to the server MAY contain a combination of object data and process- related data. For example a domain create request contains domain representation data which will be stored with domain object, and domain creation process data such as registration duration or price, which would be part as registration process data, but not directly stored with the domain object. For the process data in the message body to be distinct and consistent with the URL path structure, it MUST be enclosed in the processes/{process_name} JSON path when transmitted with the object's representation. Structure: POST /.../{collection}/{id} ... { ... object data ... "processes": { "{process_name}": { ... process data ... } } ... } Example: Domain Create request with 2-year registration: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 17] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 POST /rpp/v1/domains HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Content-Type: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en Content-Length: 220 { "name": "foo.example", "processes": { "creation": { "periods": "P2Y" } } ... other domain data ... } 7.8. Renew Resource * Request: POST /{collection}/{id}/processes/renewals * Request message: Renew request * Response message: Renew response Not every object resource includes support for the renew command. The response MUST include the Location header for the created renewal process resource. Example Domain Renew request: POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/renewals HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Content-Type: application/rpp+json RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Accept-Language: en Content-Length: 210 TODO: add renew request data here Example Renew response: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 18] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Language: en RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Content-Length: 205 Location: https://rpp.example/rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/renewals/XYZ-12345 Content-Type: application/rpp+json RPP-code: 01000 TODO add renew response data here 7.9. Transfer Resource The Transfer command is mapped to a nested resource, named "transfer". The semantics of the HTTP DELETE method are determined by the role of the client executing the DELETE method. The DELETE method is defined as "reject transfer" for the current sponsoring client of the object. For the new sponsoring client the DELETE method is defined as "cancel transfer". 7.9.1. Start * Request: POST /{collection}/{id}/processes/transfers * Request message: Optional * Response message: Status In order to initiate a new object transfer process, the client MUST use the HTTP POST method on a unique resource to create a new transfer resource object. Not all RPP objects support the Transfer command. If the transfer request is successful, then the response MUST include the Location header for the object being transferred. Example request not using object authorization: POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Content-Length: 0 Example request using object authorization: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 19] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-Authorization: authinfo value=TXkgU2VjcmV0IFRva2Vu Accept-Language: en Content-Length: 0 Example request using 1 year renewal period, using the unit and value query parameters: POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Content-Length: 23 { "duration": "P2Y" } Example Transfer response: HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Language: en Content-Length: 182 Content-Type: application/rpp+json Location: https://rpp.example/rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers/latest RPP-code: 01001 { "trStatus": "pending", "reID": "ClientX", "acID": "ClientY", "reDate": "2000-06-06T22:00:00.0Z", "acDate": "2000-06-11T22:00:00.0Z", "exDate": "2002-09-08T22:00:00.0Z } Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 20] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 7.9.2. Status A transfer object may not exist, when no transfer has been initiated for the specified object. The client MUST use the HTTP GET method and MUST NOT add content to the HTTP message body. * Request: GET {collection}/{id}/processes/transfers * Request message: Optional * Response message: Transfer Status response Example domain name Transfer Status request without authorization information required: GET /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 If the requested transfer object has associated authorization information that is not linked to another database object, then the HTTP GET method MUST be used and the authorization information MUST be included using the RPP-Authorization header. Example domain name Transfer Query request using RPP-Authorization header: GET /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-Authorization: authinfo value=TXkgU2VjcmV0IFRva2Vu If the requested object has associated authorization information linked to another database object, then the HTTP GET method MUST be used and the RPP-Authorization header MUST be included. Example domain name Transfer Query request and authorization using RPP-Authorization header: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 21] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 GET /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Authorization: authinfo value=TXkgU2VjcmV0IFRva2Vu Content-Length: 0 Example Transfer Query response: HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 230 Content-Type: application/rpp+json Content-Language: en RPP-code: 01000 TODO 7.9.3. Cancel * Request: POST /{collection}/{id}/processes/transfers/cancelation * Request message: Optional * Response message: Status The new sponsoring client MUST use the HTTP POST method to cancel a requested transfer. Example request: POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers/cancelation HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Example response: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 22] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 80 RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-code: 01000 TODO 7.9.4. Reject * Request: POST /{collection}/{id}/processes/transfers/rejection * Request message: None * Response message: Status The currently sponsoring client of the object MUST use the HTTP POST method to reject a started transfer process. Example request: POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers/rejection HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Example Reject response: HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 80 RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-code: 01000 TODO 7.9.5. Approve * Request: POST /{collection}/{id}/processes/transfers/approval * Request message: Optional * Response message: Status The currently sponsoring client MUST use the HTTP POST method to approve a transfer requested by the new sponsoring client. Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 23] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 Example Approve request: POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers/approval HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 Content-Length: 0 Example Approve response: HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 80 RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-code: 01000 TODO 7.10. Update Resource * Request: PATCH {collection}/{id} * Request message: Object Update message * Response message: Status An object Update request MUST be performed using the HTTP PATCH method. The request message body MUST contain an Update message. *TODO:* when using JSON, also allow for JSON patch so client can send partial update data only? Example request: PATCH domains/foo.example HTTP/2 Host: rpp.example Authorization: Bearer Accept: application/rpp+json Content-Type: application/rpp+json Accept-Language: en Content-Length: 252 TODO Example response: Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 24] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 HTTP/2 200 OK Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:00:00 UTC Server: Example RPP server v1.0 Content-Length: 80 RPP-Svtrid: XYZ-12345 RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345 RPP-code: 01000 TODO 8. Extension Framework TODO 9. IANA Considerations TODO 10. Internationalization Considerations TODO 11. Security Considerations RPP relies on the security of the underlying HTTP [RFC9110] transport, hence the best common practices for securing HTTP also apply to RPP. It is RECOMMENDED to follow them closely. Data confidentiality and integrity MUST be enforced, all data transport between a client and server MUST be encrypted using TLS [RFC5246]. Section 9 describes the level of security that is REQUIRED for all RPP endpoints. Due to the stateless nature of RPP, the client MUST include the authentication credentials in each HTTP request. This MAY be done by using JSON Web Tokens (JWT) [RFC7519] or Basic authentication [RFC7617]. 12. Change History 12.1. Version 01 to 02 * Updated the examples, changed from "_.example.org" to "_.example" * Merged the RPP-EPP-Code and RPP-Code headers into a single RPP- Code header * Update the RPP-Authorization header to match the HTTP Authorization header format * Added new process path segment and process representations Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 25] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 * Added use of Problem Detail [RFC9457] for error responses * Updated the Check request to now use an "availability" path segment and support both GET and HEAD methods 12.2. Version 00 to 01 * Updated "Request Headers" and "Response Headers" section * Changed transfer resource URL and HTTP method for reject, approve and cancel, in order to make the API easier to use 12.3. Version 00 (draft-rpp-core) to 00 (draft-wullink-rpp-core) * Renamed the document name to "draft-wullink-rpp-core" * Removed sections: Design Considerations, Resource Naming Convention, Session Management, HTTP Layer, Content Negotiation, Object Filtering, Error Handling * Renamed Commands section to Endpoints * Removed text about extensions * Changed naming to be less EPP like and more RDAP like 13. References 13.1. Normative References [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures", 2000, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999, . [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, . Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 26] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, . [RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009, . [RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731, DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009, . [RFC5732] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732, August 2009, . [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, August 2009, . [RFC5734] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP", STD 69, RFC 5734, DOI 10.17487/RFC5734, August 2009, . [RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012, . [RFC6648] Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham, "Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648, DOI 10.17487/RFC6648, June 2012, . [RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015, . [RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme", RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015, . Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 27] Internet-Draft RESTful Provisioning Protocol October 2025 [RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022, . [RFC9205] Nottingham, M., "Building Protocols with HTTP", BCP 56, RFC 9205, DOI 10.17487/RFC9205, June 2022, . [RFC9457] Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details for HTTP APIs", RFC 9457, DOI 10.17487/RFC9457, July 2023, . 13.2. Informative References [RFC8748] Carney, R., Brown, G., and J. Frakes, "Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 8748, DOI 10.17487/RFC8748, March 2020, . Authors' Addresses Maarten Wullink SIDN Labs Email: maarten.wullink@sidn.nl URI: https://sidn.nl/ Pawel Kowalik DENIC Email: pawel.kowalik@denic.de URI: https://denic.de/ Wullink & Kowalik Expires 18 April 2026 [Page 28]