



Network Working Group                                         M. Wullink
Internet-Draft                                                 SIDN Labs
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. Kowalik
Expires: 6 May 2026                                                DENIC
                                                         2 November 2025


                  RESTful Provisioning Protocol (RPP)
                       draft-wullink-rpp-core-03

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 6 May 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 6 May 2026                   [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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.  Problem Detail responses for errors . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Availability for Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Resource Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.3.  Poll for Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.4.  Delete Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.5.  Create Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.6.  Delete Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.7.  Processes Path Segment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       8.7.1.  Generic proces interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
         8.7.1.1.  Starting: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
         8.7.1.2.  Cancelling: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
         8.7.1.3.  Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
         8.7.1.4.  Other operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
         8.7.1.5.  Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       8.7.2.  Relation to object representation . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.8.  Renew Resource  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.9.  Transfer Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       8.9.1.  Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       8.9.2.  Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       8.9.3.  Cancel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       8.9.4.  Reject  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       8.9.5.  Approve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     8.10. Update Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Extension Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.1.  URN Sub-namespace for RPP (urn:ietf:params:rpp)  . . . .  26
   11. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   13. Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     13.1.  Version 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     13.2.  Version 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     13.3.  Version 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     13.4.  Version 00 (draft-rpp-core) to 00
            (draft-wullink-rpp-core) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29



Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

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 6 May 2026                   [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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 <method> <authorization
      information>, similar to the HTTP Authorization header, defined in
      [RFC9110, Section 11.6.2].  The <method> 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 <authorization
      information> 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 6 May 2026                   [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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 6 May 2026                   [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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 6 May 2026                   [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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 6 May 2026                   [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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.  Problem Detail responses for errors

   When an error occurs that prevents processing of the requested
   action, an RPP server MUST respond using a Problem Detail document
   [RFC9457] detailing what went wrong, or what was not acceptable to
   the server.  The type field MUST be the urn:ietf:params:rpp:problem
   URN.  The status field MUST reflect the HTTP status code.  The
   document MUST contain an errors element, as a list of objects
   detailing individual errors.

   This document consists of the following fields:

   type  (required, string) This field MUST always contain the fixed
      string value urn:ietf:params:rpp:error to indicate that this is an
      RPP Problem Detail response.
   title  (required, string) A short human-readable description of the
      Problem Detail type.
   errors  (optional, array of error objects) MUST contain objects
      detailing information about the specific errors that occurred,
      including optional references to which values in the original
      request were not acceptable to the server.

   The error object consist of the following fields:

   type  (required, string) This field SHOULD be a URI that identifies
      the error type.  This URI MAY be dereferenceable to obtain human-
      readable documentation about the error type.
   result  (required, string) This field MUST contain the RPP result
      code associated with the error.
   paths  (optional, list of strings) The JSONPath [RFC9535] to the
      value(s) in the request that caused the error.  This field MAY be
      omitted if no specific value in the request can be identified as
      the cause of the error.
   reason  (required, string) A human-readable detailed description of
      the error.





Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   RPP specifications and/or extensions MAY add extension fields to the
   error object, to convey additional information about the causes of
   the error.  For example, to indicate the account balance on a billing
   failure, the following Problem Detail response could be used:

   {
     "type": "urn:ietf:params:rpp:error",
     "title": "RPP Error",
     "errors": [{
       "type": "https://rpp.example/problems/billing/billing-failure",
       "result": "02104",
       "reason": "Not enough balance on account to create domain",
       "balance": 10.0,
       "action_cost": 25.0
     }]
   }

   Problem Detail response containing multiple errors for a domain
   create request using an invalid domain name (_$.example), JSONPaths
   are specified in the error objects to indicate which value in the
   request caused the error:

   {
     "type": "urn:ietf:params:rpp:error",
     "title": "RPP Error",
     "errors": [{
       "type": "https://rpp.example/problems/domains/domain-syntax",
       "result": "02005",
       "paths": ["$.domain.name"],
       "reason": "Invalid character(s) in domain name",
     },
     {
       "type": "https://rpp.example/problems/domains/domain-allowed-length",
       "result": "02004",
       "paths": ["$.domain.name"],
       "reason": "Domain name length must be between 3 and 63 characters",
     }]
   }

8.  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:




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   *  {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.

8.1.  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.

   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



Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   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 <token>
   Accept-Language: en
   RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345

   Example response:

   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

8.2.  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.





Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   GET domains/foo.example HTTP/2
   Host: rpp.example
   Authorization: Bearer <token>
   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 <token>
   Accept: application/rpp+json
   Accept-Language: en
   RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345
   RPP-Authorization: authinfo value=TXkgU2VjcmV0IFRva2Vu

   Example Info response:

   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

8.3.  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:








Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   GET messages HTTP/2
   Host: rpp.example
   Authorization: Bearer <token>
   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

8.4.  Delete Message

   *  Request: DELETE /messages/{id}
   *  Request message: None
   *  Response message: Poll Ack response

   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 <token>
   Accept: application/rpp+json
   Accept-Language: en
   RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345

   Example response:







Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   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

8.5.  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:

   POST domains HTTP/2
   Host: rpp.example
   Authorization: Bearer <token>
   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



Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


8.6.  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 <token>
   Accept: application/rpp+json
   Accept-Language: en
   RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345

   Example Domain Delete 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

8.7.  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.




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   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.

8.7.1.  Generic proces interface

   A generic interface for interacting with the processes is defined as
   follows:

8.7.1.1.  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"
   }




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


8.7.1.2.  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.

8.7.1.3.  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.

8.7.1.4.  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.

8.7.1.5.  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:




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   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.

8.7.2.  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 6 May 2026                  [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   POST /rpp/v1/domains HTTP/2
   Host: rpp.example
   Authorization: Bearer <token>
   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 ...
   }

8.8.  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 <token>
   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 6 May 2026                  [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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

8.9.  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".

8.9.1.  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 <token>
   Accept: application/rpp+json
   Accept-Language: en
   RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345
   Content-Length: 0

   Example request using object authorization:




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2
   Host: rpp.example
   Authorization: Bearer <token>
   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 <token>
   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 6 May 2026                  [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


8.9.2.  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 <token>
   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 <token>
   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 6 May 2026                  [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   GET /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers HTTP/2
   Host: rpp.example
   Authorization: Bearer <token>
   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

8.9.3.  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 <token>
   Accept: application/rpp+json
   Accept-Language: en
   RPP-Cltrid: ABC-12345

   Example response:












Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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

8.9.4.  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 <token>
   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

8.9.5.  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 6 May 2026                  [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   Example Approve request:

   POST /rpp/v1/domains/foo.example/processes/transfers/approval HTTP/2
   Host: rpp.example
   Authorization: Bearer <token>
   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

8.10.  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 <token>
   Accept: application/rpp+json
   Content-Type: application/rpp+json
   Accept-Language: en
   Content-Length: 252

   TODO

   Example response:




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 25]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 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

9.  Extension Framework

   TODO

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  URN Sub-namespace for RPP (urn:ietf:params:rpp)

   The IANA is requested to add the following value to the "IETF URN
   Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers"
   registry, following the template in [RFC3553]:

   Registered Parameter Identifier: rpp
   Reference: This Document
   IANA Registry Reference: [RFC5730]

11.  Internationalization Considerations

   TODO

12.  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].

13.  Change History




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 26]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


13.1.  Version 02 to 03

   *  Added use of Problem Detail [RFC9457] for error responses

13.2.  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
   *  Updated the Check request to now use an "availability" path
      segment and support both GET and HEAD methods

13.3.  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

13.4.  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

14.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following people for their
   helpful text contributions, comments and suggestions.

   *  Q Misell, AS207960 Cyfyngedig

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [REST]     Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
              Network-based Software Architectures", 2000,
              <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
              rest_arch_style.htm>.





Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 27]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   [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>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.

   [RFC3553]  Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
              IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
              Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, DOI 10.17487/RFC3553, June
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3553>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

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

   [RFC5731]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.

   [RFC5732]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732,
              August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5732>.

   [RFC5733]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733,
              August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.

   [RFC5734]  Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
              Transport over TCP", STD 69, RFC 5734,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5734, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5734>.




Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 28]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   [RFC6570]  Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6648>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC7617]  Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
              RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.

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

   [RFC9205]  Nottingham, M., "Building Protocols with HTTP", BCP 56,
              RFC 9205, DOI 10.17487/RFC9205, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9205>.

   [RFC9457]  Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details
              for HTTP APIs", RFC 9457, DOI 10.17487/RFC9457, July 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9457>.

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

15.2.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8748>.

Authors' Addresses

   Maarten Wullink
   SIDN Labs



Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 29]

Internet-Draft        RESTful Provisioning Protocol        November 2025


   Email: maarten.wullink@sidn.nl
   URI:   https://sidn.nl/


   Pawel Kowalik
   DENIC
   Email: pawel.kowalik@denic.de
   URI:   https://denic.de/











































Wullink & Kowalik          Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 30]
