draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01.txt   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-02.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Eric A. Hall INTERNET-DRAFT Eric A. Hall
Document: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01.txt May 2003 Document: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-02.txt July 2003
Expires: December, 2003 Expires: February, 2004
Category: Standards-Track Category: Standards-Track
The Federated Internet Registry Service: The Federated Internet Registry Service:
Architecture and Implementation Guide Architecture and Implementation Guide
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
skipping to change at line 45 skipping to change at line 45
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the architectural framework for the This document describes the architectural framework for the
Federated Internet Registry Service (FIRS), a distributed service Federated Internet Registry Service (FIRS), a distributed service
for storing, locating and transferring information about Internet for storing, locating and transferring information about Internet
resources using LDAPv3. resources using LDAPv3.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................2 1. Introduction...............................................3
1.1. Background..............................................3 1.1. Background..............................................3
1.2. Overview................................................4 1.2. Objectives..............................................4
1.3. Overview................................................4
2. Prerequisites and Terminology..............................5 2. Prerequisites and Terminology..............................5
3. Reference Example..........................................6 3. Reference Example..........................................6
4. The FIRS Namespace.........................................8 4. The FIRS Namespace.........................................7
4.1. The domainComponent Hierarchy...........................8 4.1. The domainComponent Hierarchy...........................7
4.2. The inetResources Container.............................9 4.2. The inetResources Container.............................8
4.3. Resource-Specific Entries..............................10 4.3. Resource-Specific Entries...............................9
4.4. Namespace Aliases......................................10 4.4. Namespace Aliases.......................................9
4.5. Partition Replicas.....................................11 4.5. Partition Replicas.....................................10
5. FIRS Schema Definitions...................................12 5. FIRS Schema Definitions...................................11
5.1. Global Schema..........................................12 5.1. Global Schema..........................................11
5.1.1. The inetResources schema.........................13 5.1.1. The inetResources schema.........................12
5.1.2. The inetAssociatedResources schema...............14 5.1.2. The inetAssociatedResources schema...............13
5.1.3. The referral schema..............................14 5.1.3. The referral schema..............................13
5.2. Resource-Specific Schema...............................14 5.2. Resource-Specific Schema...............................13
6. Query Processing Behaviors................................15 6. Query Processing Behaviors................................14
6.1. Query Pre-Processing...................................16 6.1. Query Pre-Processing...................................15
6.2. Bootstrap Processing...................................17 6.2. Bootstrap Processing...................................16
6.3. Query Processing.......................................18 6.3. Query Processing.......................................17
6.4. Query Post-Processing..................................19 6.4. Query Post-Processing..................................18
6.4.1. Referrals........................................19 6.4.1. Referrals........................................19
6.4.2. Internationalization and localization............20 6.4.2. Internationalization and localization............20
7. Transition Issues.........................................22 7. Transition Issues.........................................22
7.1. NIC Handles............................................22 7.1. NIC Handles............................................22
7.2. Change-Logs............................................23 7.2. Change-Logs............................................23
8. Security Considerations...................................23 7.3. Legacy System Support..................................23
8. Security Considerations...................................24
9. IANA Considerations.......................................26 9. IANA Considerations.......................................26
10. Author's Address..........................................26 10. Normative References......................................27
11. Normative References......................................26 11. Informational References..................................29
12. Informational References..................................28 12. Changes from Previous Versions............................29
13. Acknowledgments...........................................28 13. Author's Address..........................................31
14. Changes from Previous Versions............................29 14. Acknowledgments...........................................31
15. Full Copyright Statement..................................30 15. Full Copyright Statement..................................31
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 2]
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
FIRS is intended to provide a distributed WHOIS-like information FIRS is intended to provide a distributed WHOIS-like information
service, using the LDAPv3 specifications [RFC3377] for the data- service, using the LDAPv3 specifications [RFC3377] for the data-
formatting and query-transport functions. formatting and query-transport functions.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 2]
More specifically, the principle objective behind FIRS is to offer
structured information about distributed Internet resources in a
model which reflects the federated delegations of those resources.
This specifically includes centralized delegations from authorized
governance bodies (such as DNS domains within the "com" zone), but
also includes delegations from authorized bodies further down the
delegation path (such as leaf-node DNS domain names within the
"example.com" zone).
Furthermore, the FIRS service is intended to be used with a wide
variety of resources. The core set of specifications define rules
for handling the most-common resources (DNS domains, IP addresses,
contact information, and so forth), but other types of resources
may be grafted onto the architecture as needed. By extension, FIRS
should be capable of providing the necessary support structure for
any kind of information to be stored in a global mesh of FIRS-
centric LDAP directories, and for the FIRS-specific clients and
servers to be easily extended to accommodate that data.
Another critical objective can be described as predictability, in
that FIRS-specific data should be easily accessible to a wide
number of applications. For example, if a network manager wants to
retrieve information about a particular host or network, it should
be easy for the management application to be extended so that the
FIRS data can be fetched by that application, rather than always
requiring the use of a FIRS-specific application.
Finally, the collection of specifications which define the
Federated Internet Registry Service (FIRS) are intended to satisfy
the CRISP Working Group requirements, as specified in draft-ietf-
crisp-requirements-05, "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol
(CRISP) Requirements" [CRISP-REQ].
In order to achieve these objectives, the FIRS specifications
collectively define an LDAP-specific application, including
application-specific namespaces, object classes, attributes,
syntaxes, queries, behavioral rules, and more.
1.1. Background 1.1. Background
The original WHOIS service [RFC812] was provided as a front-end to The original WHOIS service [RFC812] was provided as a front-end to
a centralized repository of ARPANET resources and users. Over a centralized repository of ARPANET resources and users. Over
time, hundreds of WHOIS servers have been deployed across the time, hundreds of WHOIS servers have been deployed across the
public Internet, with each server providing general information public Internet, with each server providing general information
about the particular network resources under the control of a about the particular network resources under the control of a
specific organization. specific organization.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 3]
Unfortunately, neither [RFC812] nor any of its successors define a Unfortunately, neither [RFC812] nor any of its successors define a
strict set of data-typing or formatting requirements, and as a strict set of data-typing or formatting requirements, and as a
result, each of the different implementations provide different result, each of the different implementations provide different
kinds of information in slightly different ways. Furthermore, each kinds of information in slightly different ways. Furthermore, each
WHOIS server operates as a self-contained entity, with no WHOIS server operates as a self-contained entity, with no
standardized mechanisms to infer knowledge of any other servers, standardized mechanisms to infer knowledge of any other servers,
meaning that WHOIS servers cannot redirect clients to other meaning that WHOIS servers cannot redirect clients to other
servers for additional information. Another concern is that the servers for additional information. Another concern is that the
WHOIS services which are being operated today offer no means of WHOIS services which are being operated today offer no means of
client authentication, requiring that server operators essentially client authentication, requiring that server operators essentially
publish all data with a single "world-readable" permission. publish all data with a single "world-readable" permission even
However, this single permission conflicts with the privacy and though this single permission often conflicts with the privacy and
security policies of specific jurisdictions. security policies of specific jurisdictions.
There are many other secondary issues with the WHOIS service as it There are many other secondary issues with the WHOIS service as it
exists in current form. However, the largest problems are a lack exists in current form. However, the largest problems are a lack
of standardized data formats, a lack of widely-supported referral of standardized data formats, a lack of widely-supported referral
mechanisms, and a lack of privacy and security controls, as mechanisms, and a lack of privacy and security controls, as
described in the preceding text. described in the preceding text.
FIRS attempts to address these issues by defining guidelines for FIRS attempts to address these issues by defining guidelines for
the operation of a distributed and highly-structured WHOIS-like the operation of a distributed and highly-structured WHOIS-like
service, using LDAPv3 for the query/response transfer service, and service, using LDAPv3 for the query/response transfer service, and
using LDAP schema for the search inputs, answer data, and using LDAP schema for the search inputs, answer data, and
redirection mechanisms. In short, the intention of this approach redirection mechanisms. In short, the intention of this approach
is to provide an extensible and scalable WHOIS-like service, by is to provide an extensible and scalable WHOIS-like service by
leveraging the inherent capabilities of LDAPv3. leveraging the inherent capabilities of LDAPv3.
1.2. Overview Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 3]
1.2. Objectives
The FIRS collection of specifications cumulatively define a The principle objective behind FIRS is to offer structured
structured and distributed information service, including an information about distributed Internet resources in a model which
extensible framework and resource-specific definitions. The reflects the federated delegations of those resources. This
framework defined in this document is intended to accommodate a specifically includes centralized delegations from authorized
variety of different resource-types and usages, while the other governance bodies (such as DNS domains under top-level domains),
specifications define the technical details for the service as a but also includes delegations from authorized bodies further down
whole or for the different resource-types. the delegation path (such as leaf-node DNS domain names within the
"corp.example.com" zone).
Furthermore, the FIRS service is intended to be used with a wide
variety of resources. The core set of specifications define rules
for handling the most-common resources (DNS domains, IP addresses,
contact information, and so forth), but other types of resources
may be grafted onto the architecture as needed. By extension, FIRS
should be capable of providing the necessary support structure for
any kind of information to be stored in a global mesh of FIRS-
centric LDAP directories, and for the FIRS-specific clients and
servers to be easily extended to accommodate that data.
Another critical objective is integration support, in that FIRS-
specific data should be easily accessible to a wide number of
applications. For example, if a network manager needs to retrieve
information about a particular host or network which is displayed
in a management application, it should be easy for that
application to be extended so that the FIRS data can be fetched by
that application, rather than always requiring the use of a FIRS-
specific application.
Finally, the collection of specifications which define the
Federated Internet Registry Service (FIRS) are intended to satisfy
the CRISP Working Group requirements, as specified in draft-ietf-
crisp-requirements-05, "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol
(CRISP) Requirements" [CRISP-REQ].
1.3. Overview
In order to achieve the stated objectives, the FIRS specifications
collectively define an LDAP-specific application, including
application-specific namespaces, object classes, attributes,
syntaxes, matching filters, behavioral rules, and more. The
framework defined in this document is intended to accommodate the
specific resource-types and usages, while the other specifications
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 4]
define the technical details for the service as a whole or for the
unique resource-types.
Cumulatively, the FIRS collection of specifications define the Cumulatively, the FIRS collection of specifications define the
following service elements: following service elements:
* Namespace Rules. The FIRS specifications define a layered * Namespace Rules. The FIRS specifications define a layered
namespace consisting of DNS-based delegation hierarchies, a namespace consisting of DNS-based delegation hierarchies, a
FIRS-specific container entry, and resource-specific FIRS-specific container entry, and resource-specific
subordinate entries. subordinate entries.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 4]
* Schema Definitions. The FIRS specifications reuse some * Schema Definitions. The FIRS specifications reuse some
existing LDAP schema definitions, and also define several existing LDAP schema definitions, and also define several
FIRS-specific definitions, as needed. FIRS-specific definitions, as needed.
* Query-Processing Rules. The FIRS specifications also reuse * Query-Processing Rules. The FIRS specifications also reuse
some existing processing rules, and define several some existing processing rules, and define several
additional rules as needed. Among these rules are additional rules as needed. Among these rules are
requirements for normalizing data, locating servers, requirements for normalizing data, locating servers,
processing referrals, and more. processing referrals, and more.
Some of these rules apply to the architecture as a whole, while Some of these rules apply to the architecture as a whole, while
other rules apply to specific kinds of Internet resources. other rules apply to specific kinds of Internet resources.
2. Prerequisites and Terminology 2. Prerequisites and Terminology
The complete set of specifications in the FIRS collection The complete set of specifications in the FIRS collection
cumulative define a structured and distributed information service cumulative define a structured and distributed information service
using LDAPv3 for the data-formatting and transport functions. This using LDAPv3 for the data-formatting and transport functions. This
specification should be read in the context of the complete set of specification should be read in the context of that set, which
specifications, which currently include the following: currently includes [FIRS-CORE], [FIRS-DNS], [FIRS-DNSRR],
[FIRS-CONTCT], [FIRS-ASN], [FIRS-IPV4] and [FIRS-IPV6].
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01, "The Federated Internet
Registry Service: Architecture and Implementation" (this
document) [FIRS-ARCH]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-01, "The Federated Internet
Registry Service: Core Elements" [FIRS-CORE]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-01, "Defining and Locating DNS
Domains in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
[FIRS-DNS]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-01, "Defining and Locating DNS
Resource Records in the Federated Internet Registry
Service" [FIRS-DNSRR]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01, "Defining and Locating
Contact Persons in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
[FIRS-CONTCT]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-01, "Defining and Locating
Autonomous System Numbers in the Federated Internet
Registry Service" [FIRS-ASN]
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 5]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-01, "Defining and Locating IPv4
Address Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
[FIRS-IPV4]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-01, "Defining and Locating IPv6
Address Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
[FIRS-IPV6]
The FIRS service reuses, unites and clarifies several pre-existing
technologies. In order to fully understand FIRS, readers should be
familiar with the following technologies and specifications:
RFC 2247, "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 DNs" [RFC2247]
RFC 2251, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)"
[RFC2251]
RFC 2252, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
Attribute Syntax Definitions" [RFC2252]
RFC 2254, "The String Representation of LDAP Search
Filters" [RFC2254]
RFC 2256, "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use
with LDAPv3" [RFC2256]
RFC 2798, "Definition of the inetOrgPerson LDAP Object
Class" [RFC2798]
RFC 3296, "Named Subordinate References in Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Directories" [RFC3296]
RFC 3377, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): In order to fully understand FIRS, readers should be familiar with
Technical Specification" [RFC3377] [RFC2247], [RFC2251], [RFC2252], [RFC2253], [RFC2254], [RFC2256],
[RFC2798], [RFC3296]and [RFC3377].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 5]
3. Reference Example 3. Reference Example
Figure 1 below shows an example of a FIRS-specific data-set. This Figure 1 below shows an example of a FIRS-specific data-set. This
example is referenced throughout this specification. example is referenced throughout this specification.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 6]
dc=example,dc=com dc=example,dc=com
| |
+-cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com +-cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com
[top object class] [top object class]
[inetResources object class] [inetResources object class]
| |
+-attribute: inetGeneralContacts +-attribute: inetGeneralContacts
| value: "admins@example.com" | value: "admins@example.com"
| |
+-cn=admins@example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com +-cn=admins@example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com
skipping to change at line 314 skipping to change at line 262
+-attribute: inetTechContacts +-attribute: inetTechContacts
| value: "admins@example.com" | value: "admins@example.com"
| |
+-attribute: ref +-attribute: ref
value: "ldap://firs.example.net/cn=inetResources, value: "ldap://firs.example.net/cn=inetResources,
dc=example,dc=net"??? dc=example,dc=net"???
(1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.8:=host.example.net)" (1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.8:=host.example.net)"
Figure 1: The FIRS-specific data for Example Widgets. Figure 1: The FIRS-specific data for Example Widgets.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 6]
As can be seen in Figure 1, entries use a FIRS-specific namespace As can be seen in Figure 1, entries use a FIRS-specific namespace
in conjunction with FIRS-specific schema. Meanwhile, clients use in conjunction with FIRS-specific schema. FIRS clients use FIRS-
FIRS-specific queries to locate and retrieve this information. specific queries to navigate and retrieve the data, as needed.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 7]
4. The FIRS Namespace 4. The FIRS Namespace
A critical aspect of FIRS is the use of an application-specific A critical aspect of FIRS is the use of an application-specific
namespace which is imposed on all FIRS-based resources. namespace which is imposed on all FIRS-based resources. The FIRS
namespace rules facilitate the programmatic creation of searches,
The FIRS namespace rules facilitate the programmatic creation of and help to ensure predictable results.
searches, and help to ensure predictable results. The use of a
private namespace also acts to segregate FIRS-related data from
other kinds of data which may reside on a participating server,
thereby giving the operator greater control over the security and
replication considerations for all of the data.
The FIRS namespace consists of three "layers", which are: The FIRS namespace consists of three "layers", which are:
* A set of domainComponent relative distinguished names which * A set of domainComponent relative distinguished names which
cumulatively identify a specific partition of the global cumulatively identify a specific partition of the global
directory tree. directory tree.
* A FIRS-specific entry which acts as a container for all of * A FIRS-specific container entry which segregates the
the FIRS-related resource-specific child entries. resource-specific child entries from other LDAP data.
* The resource-specific entries which describe the resources * The resource-specific entries which describe the managed
under the control of the selected partition. resources in the selected partition.
The namespace follows a right-to-left order. The namespace follows a right-to-left order.
As an example, Figure 1 shows a DNS domain resource entry named As an example, Figure 1 shows a DNS domain resource entry named
"cn=example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com", which refers "cn=example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com", which refers
to the "example.com" domain resource within the "cn=inetResources" to the "example.com" domain resource within the "cn=inetResources"
container under the "dc=example,dc=com" directory partition. container under the "dc=example,dc=com" directory partition.
4.1. The domainComponent Hierarchy 4.1. The domainComponent Hierarchy
The top-level of the namespace uses the domainComponent naming and The top-level of the namespace uses the domainComponent naming and
mapping rules specified in RFC 2247 [RFC2247], which maps DNS mapping rules specified in RFC 2247 [RFC2247], which maps DNS
domain names to domainComponent ("dc=") relative distinguished domain names to domainComponent ("dc=") relative distinguished
names (RDNs). The full sequence of domainComponent RDNs map to an names (RDNs). The full sequence of domainComponent RDNs
equivalent scope of authority in the DNS namespace, with the full cumulatively represents a partition in the LDAP directory tree.
sequence of RDNs cumulatively representing the root of a partition
in the LDAP directory tree.
In this model, a sequence of domainComponent RDNs map to a domain In this model, a sequence of domainComponent RDNs map to a domain
name in the global DNS hierarchy, with the FIRS partitions name in the global DNS hierarchy, with a FIRS partition having an
providing scopes of authority in the global FIRS database of identical scope of authority as its domain name counterpart.
distributed partitions. Furthermore, the SRV resource records Furthermore, the SRV resource records associated with those DNS
associated with those DNS domains also provide a useful mechanism domains also provide a mechanism for locating the authoritative
LDAP servers associated with any particular resource in the global
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 8] FIRS directory database.
for locating the authoritative LDAP servers associated with any
particular resource in the global FIRS directory database.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 7]
Since the partition roots determine the scope of control over a Since the partition roots determine the scope of control over a
set of resources, partitions which overlap also have overlapping set of resources, partitions which overlap also have overlapping
scopes of control. For example, the "dc=com" and scopes of control. For example, the "dc=com" and
"dc=example,dc=com" partitions can both provide information about "dc=example,dc=com" partitions can both provide information about
the "www.example.com" domain name resource. In order to reduce the the "www.example.com" domain name resource. In order to reduce the
amount of ambiguity which is naturally present in this kind of amount of ambiguity which is naturally present in this kind of
model, FIRS defines multiple bootstrapping models and also defines model, FIRS defines multiple bootstrapping models and also defines
the default model which should be used for any given resource. For the default model which should be used for any given resource. For
example, queries for centrally-delegated resources are supposed to example, queries for centrally-delegated resources are supposed to
ask the top-level partition for information about those resources, ask the top-level partition for information about those resources,
while queries for user-managed resources are supposed to ask the while queries for user-managed resources are supposed to ask the
leaf-node partition for information about those resources. leaf-node partition for information about those resources.
For example, Figure 1 shows the directory partition of Figure 1 shows the directory partition of "dc=example,dc=com"
"dc=example,dc=com" which maps to the "example.com" scope of which maps to the "example.com" scope of authority from the DNS
authority from the DNS hierarchy, with the "dc=example,dc=com" hierarchy, with the "dc=example,dc=com" sequence representing a
sequence representing the root of a partition in the globally distinct partition in the globally distributed directory database.
distributed directory database.
Note that each of the specifications which govern particular kinds
of resources define their own partition-mapping rules, using
different portions of the DNS hierarchy. Specifications are
explicitly allowed to use whatever portion of the DNS namespace
they wish for this service, but the absolute binding between
partitions and DNS domains MUST be preserved in all cases. If an
organization chooses to offer a private list of resources (such as
advertising a list of networks which have been compromised), that
organization is free to map the application-specific partition to
any domain name it chooses (note that the use of SRV resource
records for location information ensures that only a domain name
under the control of a willing party can be used).
4.2. The inetResources Container 4.2. The inetResources Container
This specification requires the use of a mandatory LDAP container This specification requires the use of a mandatory LDAP container
entry with the RDN of "cn=inetResources", which MUST exist at the entry with the RDN of "cn=inetResources", which MUST exist at the
root of every directory partition that provides FIRS services. All root of every directory partition that provides FIRS services. All
publically-accessible resource-specific entries MUST be stored in publicly-accessible resource-specific FIRS-related entries MUST be
the "cn=inetResources" container entry. stored in the "cn=inetResources" container entry.
The primary motivation for this naming rule is for predictability, The primary motivation for this naming rule is for predictability,
in that it allows searches to be formed programmatically (a search in that it allows searches to be formed programmatically (a search
base for resources in "dc=example,dc=com" can be programmatically base for resources in "dc=example,dc=com" can be programmatically
formed as "cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com", for example). formed as "cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com", for example).
Furthermore, the use of a single container entry for all of an Furthermore, the use of a single container entry for all of an
organization's FIRS-related resources allows that branch of the organization's FIRS-related resources allows that branch of the
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 8]
directory database to be managed independently of other entries on directory database to be managed independently of other entries on
the server, which facilitates better operational security and the server, which facilitates better operational security and
replication controls. replication controls.
All told, the use of the inetResources container is important All told, the use of the inetResources container is important
enough to justify the MANDATORY usage of this naming syntax. enough to justify the MANDATORY usage of this naming syntax.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 9]
4.3. Resource-Specific Entries 4.3. Resource-Specific Entries
The FIRS collection of specifications define several Internet The FIRS collection of specifications define several Internet
resource types, each of which have their own naming rules. resource types, each of which have their own naming rules.
However, each resource type follows a consistent naming principle, However, each resource type follows a consistent naming principle,
in that each specific resource has an RDN which uniquely in that each specific resource has an RDN which uniquely
identifies that resource within the inetResources container entry. identifies that resource within the inetResources container entry.
For example, Figure 1 shows an entry for the "www.example.com" For example, Figure 1 shows an entry for the "www.example.com"
domain name resource in the "cn=inetResources" container of the domain name resource in the "cn=inetResources" container of the
skipping to change at line 433 skipping to change at line 386
partition. Although the naming syntax is different for each partition. Although the naming syntax is different for each
resource type, the naming rules are consistent and facilitate resource type, the naming rules are consistent and facilitate
predictable usage. predictable usage.
The naming rules for each of the distinct resource type are The naming rules for each of the distinct resource type are
provided in the documents which govern those resource types. provided in the documents which govern those resource types.
4.4. Namespace Aliases 4.4. Namespace Aliases
FIRS allows entries to alias for other entries through the use of FIRS allows entries to alias for other entries through the use of
referrals. In this model, an entry exists which will match against referrals. Referrals represent one of the strongest capabilities
searches for the queried data, but the attributes associated with of the FIRS architecture, in that they allow for a significant
that entry indicate that some other entry should also be queried. variety of cross-referencing among entries. For example, referrals
can be used to point an inetResources container entry in one
Referrals represent one of the strongest capabilities of the FIRS partition to another inetResources container entry in another
architecture, in that they allow for a significant variety of partition, allowing multiple partitions to effectively share a
cross-referencing among entries. For example, referrals can be single partition (this is useful when organizations manage
used to point an inetResources container entry in one partition to multiple networks or domains, and wish to consolidate their
another inetResources container entry in another partition, management). As another example, referrals can also be used to
allowing multiple partitions to effectively share a single create placeholder entries for specific resources (such as a web
partition (this is useful when organizations manage multiple server), with that entry only existing as a referral for a
networks or domains, and wish to consolidate their management). As resource which is managed in another partition (such as a web-
another example, referrals can also be used to create placeholder hosting server at an ISP), with both entries providing information
entries for specific resources (such as a web server) which only about that resource.
exist as referrals for resources which are managed in other
partitions (such as a web-hosting server at an ISP), with both
entries providing information about that resource.
This latter example can be seen in Figure 1, which shows an entry This latter example can be seen in Figure 1, which shows an entry
for "cn=www.example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com" which for "cn=www.example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com" which
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 9]
provides a referral to the "cn=host.example.net" entry at provides a referral to the "cn=host.example.net" entry at
"cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=net". Queries for the local entry "cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=net". Queries for the local entry
would be answered with the locally-available information and then would be answered with the locally-available information and then
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 10]
redirected to the referral target where additional information redirected to the referral target where additional information
could be retrieved. could be retrieved.
FIRS supports two different kinds of referrals, which are FIRS supports two different kinds of referrals, which are
subordinate reference referrals and continuation reference subordinate reference referrals and continuation reference
referrals. Subordinate reference referrals indicate that the referrals. Subordinate reference referrals indicate that the
search base used in the query only exists as an alias to another search base used in the query only exists as an alias to another
partition or entry, meaning that the entire query must be partition or entry, meaning that the entire query must be
restarted in order for any answer data to be retrieved. Meanwhile, restarted in order for any answer data to be retrieved. Meanwhile,
continuation reference referrals indicate that some answer data is continuation reference referrals indicate that some answer data is
skipping to change at line 482 skipping to change at line 432
Referrals are provided as URLs. FIRS specifically requires the use Referrals are provided as URLs. FIRS specifically requires the use
of LDAP URLs in order to ensure predictable automated processing. of LDAP URLs in order to ensure predictable automated processing.
Refer to section 6.4.1 for a brief discussion on how these URLs Refer to section 6.4.1 for a brief discussion on how these URLs
are processed by FIRS clients. are processed by FIRS clients.
4.5. Partition Replicas 4.5. Partition Replicas
All directory partitions which provide data for global Internet All directory partitions which provide data for global Internet
resources SHOULD be replicated across two or more servers. Each of resources SHOULD be replicated across two or more servers. Each of
the authoritative LDAP servers for the managed resource MUST be the authoritative LDAP servers for the managed resource MUST be
specified with a unique DNS SRV resource record for the domain specified with a unique DNS SRV resource record.
name associated with the top-level resource assignment space.
Directory partitions which serve multiple organizations SHOULD Directory partitions which serve multiple organizations SHOULD
also be replicated. For example, an ISP which provides FIRS also be replicated. For example, an ISP which provides FIRS
services for their customers SHOULD also follow these same rules, services for their customers SHOULD also follow these same rules,
since outages of those servers will affect multiple parties. Leaf- since outages of those servers will affect multiple parties. Leaf-
node directory partitions associated with an user-managed resource node directory partitions associated with user-managed resources
MAY be replicated, and are encouraged to do so. MAY replicate their partitions, but are not required to do so.
Similarly, any referral URLs which include host identifier
elements SHOULD provide multiple URLs, each of which identify
different hosts. For leaf-node referrals and labeledURI
references, this behavior MAY be relaxed, although it is still
encouraged.
Note that the most effective replication strategy will be for Note that the most effective replication strategy will be for
entities to replicate their directory partitions with the entities to replicate their directory partitions with their
delegation parents, as this will allow queries for those resources delegation parents, as this will allow queries for those resources
to be processed by the parent servers (thereby eliminating the to be processed by the parent servers (thereby eliminating the
need for referral queries). In many cases, this will not be need for an immediate referral). In many cases, this will not be
feasible (the servers for the "dc=com" directory partition cannot feasible (the servers for the "dc=com" directory partition cannot
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 11]
be expected to host replicas of every subordinate directory be expected to host replicas of every subordinate directory
partition), but it is encouraged where practical. partition), but it is encouraged where practical.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 10]
It is also expected that certain servers will be configured to It is also expected that certain servers will be configured to
serve as multi-replica masters, effectively acting as large-scale serve as multi-replica masters, effectively acting as large-scale
caching servers for many different resources. When used in caching servers for many different resources. When used in
conjunction with the targeted bootstrap model described in section conjunction with the targeted bootstrap model described in section
6.4.1, this will allow clients to retrieve a significant amount of 6.4.1, this will allow clients to retrieve a significant amount of
information without having to pursue a large number of referrals information without having to pursue a large number of referrals
or redirects. This usage is expected and endorsed. or redirects. This usage is expected and endorsed.
Finally, it is important to recognize that the LDAP specifications Note that the LDAP specifications do not currently provide cache
do not currently provide cache timers or any other mechanisms timers or any other mechanisms which can indicate how accurate or
which can indicate how accurate or timely any replicas may be. timely any replicas may be. It is important for replicas to be
synchronized frequently in order to avoid problems that may result
from replicas going stale.
Further towards the objectives of reliability and redundancy, any
referral URLs which include host identifier elements SHOULD
provide multiple URLs, each of which identify different hosts. For
leaf-node referrals and labeledURI [RFC2079] references, this
behavior MAY be relaxed. Note that a host identifier MAY resolve
to multiple addresses, and secondary IP addresses SHOULD be used
if one of the addresses fails; clients SHOULD NOT give up on a
host simply because one of its IP addresses appears to be
unreachable.
5. FIRS Schema Definitions 5. FIRS Schema Definitions
Another critical aspect of FIRS is the use of well-known schema, Another critical aspect of FIRS is the use of well-known schema,
including object classes, attributes, syntaxes and matching including object classes, attributes, syntaxes and matching
filters. Some of the schema definitions are for the global FIRS filters. Some of the schema definitions are for the global FIRS
service and are usable by all entries (including resource-specific service and are usable by all entries (including resource-specific
entries), while others are specific to particular resource-types. entries), while others are specific to particular resource-types.
Wherever any suitable pre-existing schema definitions are For new services, pre-existing schema definitions SHOULD be reused
available they should be reused, since reuse facilitates if they are suitable, since this facilitates integration with
integration with other LDAP applications. other LDAP applications.
5.1. Global Schema 5.1. Global Schema
There are three global schema definitions which can be used by any There are three global schema definitions which can be used by any
of the entries within FIRS. These include: of the entries within FIRS. These include:
* The "inetResources" master schema. All FIRS-related entries * The "inetResources" master schema. All FIRS-related entries
(including the inetResources container entry and all of the (including the inetResources container entry and all of the
resource-specific subordinate entries) MUST use the resource-specific subordinate entries) MUST use the
inetResources structural object class and schema inetResources structural object class and schema
definitions defined in [FIRS-CORE]. The inetResources definitions defined in [FIRS-CORE]. The inetResources
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 11]
object class defines a variety of general-purpose object class defines a variety of general-purpose
attributes which are useful for general information about attributes which are useful for general information about
an organization and its resources. an organization and its resources.
* Associated resources. All FIRS-related entries MAY use the * Associated resources. All FIRS-related entries MAY use the
"inetAssociatedResources" auxiliary object class and schema "inetAssociatedResources" auxiliary object class and schema
definitions defined in [FIRS-CORE]. This object class definitions defined in [FIRS-CORE]. This object class
provides cross-reference pointer attributes which allow an provides cross-reference pointer attributes which allow an
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 12]
entry to reference other resources which may be of interest entry to reference other resources which may be of interest
to the user. to other users or applications.
* Referral pointers. All FIRS-related entries MAY use the * Referral pointers. All FIRS-related entries MAY use the
"referral" object class and schema definitions defined in "referral" object class and schema definitions defined in
[RFC3296]. This object class allows an entry to exist as a [RFC3296]. This object class allows an entry to exist as a
referral source, with queries for that resource being referral source, with queries for that resource being
redirected to the referral target. Refer to section 4.4 for redirected to the referral target. Refer to section 4.4 for
a discussion on the different kinds of referral mechanisms a discussion on the different kinds of referral mechanisms
offered by FIRS, and section 6.4.1 for a discussion on the offered by FIRS, and section 6.4.1 for a discussion on the
FIRS referral-processing mechanisms. FIRS referral-processing mechanisms.
skipping to change at line 590 skipping to change at line 544
Since multiple directory partitions can use subordinate reference Since multiple directory partitions can use subordinate reference
referrals to share a single common inetResources entry, it is referrals to share a single common inetResources entry, it is
important for the data to be applicable to all of the entries important for the data to be applicable to all of the entries
which refer to it. For example, it would be effective for a small which refer to it. For example, it would be effective for a small
private company to use a shared set of inetResources attributes private company to use a shared set of inetResources attributes
for their DNS domain names and IP network blocks, but it would for their DNS domain names and IP network blocks, but it would
probably be counter-productive for a global ISP to share contact probably be counter-productive for a global ISP to share contact
data across all of their hosted domains and routed networks. If data across all of their hosted domains and routed networks. If
separate contacts are required for each resource, the contact data separate contacts are required for each resource, the contact data
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 12]
should be specified within each entry, rather than being linked to should be specified within each entry, rather than being linked to
the inetResources entry. the inetResources entry.
The inetResources object class provides several multi-valued The inetResources object class provides several multi-valued
contact-related attributes for a variety of well-known contact-related attributes for a variety of well-known
administrative roles. This model allows the inetResources entry administrative roles. This model allows the inetResources entry
and each of the subordinate managed resources to share a common and each of the subordinate managed resources to share a common
set of administrative roles, or to have unique roles for each set of administrative roles, or to have unique roles for each
resource, as seen fit by the managing entity. resource, as seen fit by the managing entity.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 13]
5.1.2. The inetAssociatedResources schema 5.1.2. The inetAssociatedResources schema
The inetAssociatedResources object class defines attributes which The inetAssociatedResources object class defines attributes which
are useful for providing general-purpose cross-referencing are useful for providing general-purpose cross-referencing
information with other resources. For example, a contact entry can information with other resources. For example, a contact entry can
list IPv4 networks or DNS domains as associated resources, thereby list IPv4 networks or DNS domains as associated resources, thereby
providing a simplistic cross-reference mechanism between an providing a simplistic cross-reference mechanism between an
administrator and the resource he manages. In short, any resource administrator and the resources he manages. In short, any of the
can be associated with any other resource through the use of this common resource types can be associated with any other resource
object class. through the use of this object class.
5.1.3. The referral schema 5.1.3. The referral schema
The referral object class is used to redirect queries to other The referral object class is used to redirect queries to other
entries programmatically. This object class and its associated entries programmatically. This object class and its associated
schema and rules provide the backbone of the aliasing mechanisms schema and rules provide the backbone of the aliasing mechanisms
discussed in section 4.4. discussed in section 4.4.
5.2. Resource-Specific Schema 5.2. Resource-Specific Schema
skipping to change at line 636 skipping to change at line 591
* DNS domains. Every domain name resource entry MUST use the * DNS domains. Every domain name resource entry MUST use the
inetDnsDomain object class and schema definitions defined inetDnsDomain object class and schema definitions defined
in [FIRS-DNS]. These entries can refer to zone delegations, in [FIRS-DNS]. These entries can refer to zone delegations,
host-specific entries, reverse-lookup pointer entries, or host-specific entries, reverse-lookup pointer entries, or
any other domain name. any other domain name.
* DNS resource-records. Any domain name resource MAY use the * DNS resource-records. Any domain name resource MAY use the
inetDnsRR object class and schema definitions defined in inetDnsRR object class and schema definitions defined in
[FIRS-DNSRR]. The inetDnsRR object class defines a single [FIRS-DNSRR]. The inetDnsRR object class defines a single
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 13]
optional attribute for storing multiple DNS resource optional attribute for storing multiple DNS resource
records as supplemental data to a domain name entry. records as supplemental data to a domain name entry.
* IPv4 address blocks. Every IPv4 address block resource MUST * IPv4 address blocks. Every IPv4 address block resource MUST
use the inetIpv4Network object class and schema definitions use the inetIpv4Network object class and schema definitions
defined in [FIRS-IPV4]. Entries can refer to entire defined in [FIRS-IPV4]. Entries can refer to entire
networks or to single hosts, as needed. networks or to single hosts, as needed.
* IPv6 address blocks. Every IPv6 address block resource MUST * IPv6 address blocks. Every IPv6 address block resource MUST
use the inetIpv6Network object class and schema definitions use the inetIpv6Network object class and schema definitions
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 14]
defined in [FIRS-IPV6]. Entries can refer to entire defined in [FIRS-IPV6]. Entries can refer to entire
networks or to single hosts, as needed. networks or to single hosts, as needed.
* Autonomous system numbers. Every autonomous system number * Autonomous system numbers. Every autonomous system number
resource MUST use the inetAsNumber object class and schema resource MUST use the inetAsNumber object class and schema
definitions defined in [FIRS-ASN]. definitions defined in [FIRS-ASN].
* Contacts. Every contact entry MUST use the inetOrgPerson * Contacts. Every contact entry MUST use the inetOrgPerson
object class defined in [RFC2798], but MUST also use the object class defined in [RFC2798], but MUST also use the
additional schema definitions defined in [FIRS-CONTCT]. additional schema definitions defined in [FIRS-CONTCT].
skipping to change at line 684 skipping to change at line 639
for the query. Since this process is different for each for the query. Since this process is different for each
particular resource-type, the rules which govern this particular resource-type, the rules which govern this
behavior are defined in each of the resource-specific behavior are defined in each of the resource-specific
specifications. specifications.
* Bootstrap processing. Once a resource-type and partition * Bootstrap processing. Once a resource-type and partition
have been determined, the client must locate the LDAP have been determined, the client must locate the LDAP
servers which are authoritative for that partition. [FIRS- servers which are authoritative for that partition. [FIRS-
CORE] defines three different bootstrap models that clients CORE] defines three different bootstrap models that clients
can use as part of this process, while each of the can use as part of this process, while each of the
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 14]
resource-specific specifications define which of the models resource-specific specifications define which of the models
are to be used for each particular resource-type. are to be used for each particular resource-type.
* Query processing. Once a server has been located, the * Query processing. Once a server has been located, the
client must submit the LDAP query which was formed during client must submit the LDAP query which was formed during
the pre-preprocessing phase. [FIRS-CORE] defines certain the pre-preprocessing phase. [FIRS-CORE] defines certain
LDAPv3 query parameters which all FIRS clients MUST conform LDAPv3 query parameters which all FIRS clients MUST conform
with, while the resource-specific specifications define with, while the resource-specific specifications define
resource-specific matching rules. resource-specific matching rules.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 15]
* Query post-processing. Response data frequently needs to be * Query post-processing. Response data frequently needs to be
further processed. For example, referrals may need to be further processed. For example, referrals may need to be
processed, or some kinds of data may need to be localized. processed, or some kinds of data may need to be localized.
These mechanisms and their behavioral rules are defined in These mechanisms and their behavioral rules are defined in
[FIRS-CORE], while the resource-specific specifications may [FIRS-CORE], while the resource-specific specifications may
also describe supplemental rules. also describe supplemental rules.
Each of these phases are discussed in more detail below. Each of these phases are discussed in more detail below.
6.1. Query Pre-Processing 6.1. Query Pre-Processing
skipping to change at line 730 skipping to change at line 686
so forth, each of which require that the resource-type be so forth, each of which require that the resource-type be
appropriately identified. Clients MAY use any mechanisms appropriately identified. Clients MAY use any mechanisms
necessary to force this determination. necessary to force this determination.
* Validate and normalize the data. In all cases, the input * Validate and normalize the data. In all cases, the input
data MUST be validated and normalized according to the data MUST be validated and normalized according to the
syntax rules defined in the specification which governs the syntax rules defined in the specification which governs the
resource-type. As an example of this step, queries for resource-type. As an example of this step, queries for
internationalized domain names must be validated and internationalized domain names must be validated and
normalized into a canonical UTF-8 [RFC2279] form before any normalized into a canonical UTF-8 [RFC2279] form before any
other steps can be taken. Similarly, IPv6 addresses are other steps can be taken. Similarly, IP addresses are
required to conform to specific syntax rules, and input
address may need to be expanded or compressed in order to Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 15]
comply with the syntax requirements. required to conform to specific syntax rules, with the
input address possibly being expanded or compressed so as
to comply with the syntax requirements.
* Determine the authoritative directory partition for the * Determine the authoritative directory partition for the
named resource. In most cases, the authoritative partition named resource. In most cases, the authoritative partition
will be a variation of the input query string, but this is will be a variation of the input query string, but this is
not always the case. For example, the default partition for not always the case. For example, the default partition for
an email address will be extrapolated from the domain an email address will be extrapolated from the domain
component of the email address itself, while the component of the email address itself, while the
authoritative partition for an autonomous system number
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 16] uses a reserved (special-purpose) domain name. In some
authoritative partition for an ASN uses a reserved cases, the authoritative partition may change during the
(special-purpose) domain name. In some cases, the subsequent query-processing steps.
authoritative partition may change during the subsequent
query-processing steps.
* Determine the search base for the query. Each resource type * Determine the search base for the query. Each resource type
has resource-specific query-processing rules which will has resource-specific query-processing rules which will
dictate how the authoritative partitions are mapped to the dictate how the authoritative partitions are mapped to the
search base. In some cases, the cn=inetResources container search base. In some cases, the cn=inetResources container
entry in the authoritative partition will be used "as-is", entry in the authoritative partition will be used "as-is",
while in other cases, the cn=inetResources container entry while in other cases, the cn=inetResources container entry
in a delegation parent of the authoritative partition will in a delegation parent of the authoritative partition will
be used instead. In some cases, the search base may change be used instead. In some cases, the search base may change
during subsequent query-processing steps. during subsequent query-processing steps.
skipping to change at line 779 skipping to change at line 735
Once all of the pre-processing steps have been successfully Once all of the pre-processing steps have been successfully
completed, the client will have to locate an LDAPv3 server which completed, the client will have to locate an LDAPv3 server which
is authoritative for the search base before it can submit the is authoritative for the search base before it can submit the
query. This process is described in section 6.2 below. query. This process is described in section 6.2 below.
6.2. Bootstrap Processing 6.2. Bootstrap Processing
The bootstrap process uses DNS queries to locate the LDAP servers The bootstrap process uses DNS queries to locate the LDAP servers
which should be used for a query. However, since different kinds which should be used for a query. However, since different kinds
of resources are managed through different delegation models, of resources are managed through different delegation models,
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 16]
there are also different bootstrap models which have to be used to there are also different bootstrap models which have to be used to
perform this process. perform this process.
FIRS supports three different bootstrap models, which are: FIRS supports three different bootstrap models, which are:
* Targeted. The "targeted" bootstrap model has the client * Targeted. The "targeted" bootstrap model has the client
attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with a attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with a
specific domain name, such as a domain name which may be specific domain name, such as a domain name which may be
returned as referrals or URLs. If no servers can be found, returned as referrals or URLs. If no servers can be found
the client exits the query. at that domain name, the client exits the query.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 17]
* Top-down. The "top-down" bootstrap model has the client * Top-down. The "top-down" bootstrap model has the client
attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with a attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with a
top-level partition in the delegation path to the top-level partition in the delegation path to the
authoritative partition. If no servers can be found for the authoritative partition, and then following any subsequent
top-level domain, the client exits the query. LDAP referrals which may be returned. If no servers can be
found for the top-level domain, the client exits the query.
* Bottom-up. The "bottom-up" bootstrap model has the client * Bottom-up. The "bottom-up" bootstrap model has the client
attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with the attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with the
authoritative partition itself. If no servers can be found authoritative partition itself. If no servers can be found
for that partition, the authoritative partition is reset to for that partition, the authoritative partition is reset to
the immediate parent in the delegation hierarchy and new the immediate parent in the delegation hierarchy and new
DNS queries are issued, with this process repeating until DNS queries are issued, with this process repeating until a
some servers are found or there are no more partitions in server is found or there are no more domains in the
the delegation path which can be queried. delegation path which can be queried.
Each of the models are appropriate to different usages. For Each of the models are appropriate to different usages. For
example, The targeted model is most useful when a particular piece example, The targeted model is most useful when a particular piece
of data is presumed to exist at a pre-determined location. of data is presumed to exist at a pre-determined location.
Meanwhile, the top-down model is best suited for searches about Meanwhile, the top-down model is best suited for searches about
global resources which are centrally managed and delegated (such global resources which are centrally managed and delegated (such
as IP addresses and DNS domains), and where centrally-managed as IP addresses and DNS domains), and where centrally-managed
delegation information is critical. Finally, the bottom-up model delegation information is critical. Finally, the bottom-up model
is most appropriate for resources which are not centrally is most appropriate for resources which are managed at a leaf-node
delegated and managed (such as contact information). (such as contact information).
6.3. Query Processing 6.3. Query Processing
Once an LDAP server has been located, the LDAPv3 query is Once an LDAP server has been located, the LDAPv3 query is
submitted to that server. submitted to that server.
Most of the values for the query will have been collected during Most of the values for the query will have been collected during
the pre-processing phase, although [FIRS-CORE] defines some rules the pre-processing phase, although [FIRS-CORE] defines some rules
which govern all queries. For example, [FIRS-CORE] specifies a which govern all queries. For example, [FIRS-CORE] specifies a
maximum time limit of 60 seconds for all queries in order to maximum time limit of 60 seconds for queries (among other similar
prevent runaway searches which match all entries.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 17]
kinds of restrictions) in order to prevent runaway searches which
would otherwise match all entries.
[FIRS-CORE] also allows for authentication and access controls, in [FIRS-CORE] also allows for authentication and access controls, in
that FIRS servers are allowed to limit the depth and breadth of that FIRS servers are allowed to limit the depth and breadth of
information that they provide to a specific client based on a information that they provide to a specific client based on a
variety of factors, including the level of authenticated access. variety of factors, including the level of authenticated access.
Another consideration which can arise during this phase of the Another consideration which can arise during this phase of the
process is protocol and schema versioning considerations. These process is protocol and schema versioning considerations. The
mechanisms are already existent in the LDAPv3 specifications, and [LDAP] specifications already define mechanisms for protocol
their usage is encouraged by [FIRS-CORE]. version negotiation, and the use of these mechanisms is endorsed
and encouraged in [FIRS-CORE].
Schema and capability negotiation is handled through the use of a
"firsVersion" control (as defined in [FIRS-CORE]), which provides
a list of the FIRS-specific object classes that are supported by
the target server. If a server advertises support for any of the
FIRS-specific object classes, then the server also commits to
supporting all of the attributes and matching filters associated
with that object class. Clients can then use this information to
determine whether or not the current server is using the same
schema as the client.
The client MAY also use this information to determine whether or
not it will need to construct its own queries. Since it is
somewhat likely that a particular server will not support all of
the mechanisms required by the complete FIRS model (especially
including all of the extended matching filters), then the client
can use this information to determine if it needs to construct its
own extended queries locally. Refer to the resource-specific
documents for more information on this process.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 18]
6.4. Query Post-Processing 6.4. Query Post-Processing
Once a query has been submitted and processed, the server should Once a query has been submitted and processed, the server will
return answer data or some kind of referral, or possibly both. In return answer data or some kind of referral, or possibly both. In
general, FIRS clients are expected to display all of the answer general, FIRS clients are expected to display all of the answer
data and process all of the referrals, although there are specific data and process all of the referrals, although there are specific
considerations which must be taken into account. In particular, considerations which must be taken into account. In particular,
there are considerations for handling the different kinds of there are considerations for handling the different kinds of
referrals, and there are localizations issues for specific kinds referrals, and there are localizations issues for specific kinds
of attribute data. of attribute data.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 18]
6.4.1. Referrals 6.4.1. Referrals
As was discussed in section 4.4, there are two kinds of referral As was discussed in section 4.4, there are two kinds of referral
mechanisms which are used with FIRS, which are subordinate mechanisms which are used with FIRS, which are subordinate
reference referrals and continuation reference referrals. More reference referrals and continuation reference referrals. More
specifically: specifically:
* Subordinate reference referrals. Subordinate reference * Subordinate reference referrals. Subordinate reference
referrals are returned when the search base specified in a referrals are returned when the search base specified in a
query exists as a referral to some other entry. This query exists as a referral to some other entry. This
skipping to change at line 878 skipping to change at line 859
and their schema are defined in [RFC3296] although there and their schema are defined in [RFC3296] although there
are additional restrictions placed on their usage as are additional restrictions placed on their usage as
described in [FIRS-CORE]. described in [FIRS-CORE].
* Continuation reference referrals. Continuation reference * Continuation reference referrals. Continuation reference
referrals are returned when a search operation has been referrals are returned when a search operation has been
successfully processed by the queried server, but the successfully processed by the queried server, but the
answer data also includes referrals to other entries. This answer data also includes referrals to other entries. This
condition means that the current search operation has condition means that the current search operation has
succeeded, but that additional searches SHOULD be started succeeded, but that additional searches SHOULD be started
for all of the known answer data to be retrieved. in order for all of the answer data to be retrieved.
These referrals are often provided as supplemental data to These referrals are often provided as supplemental data to
an answer set, although this is not required (a an answer set, although this is not required (a
continuation reference referral can be the only response, continuation reference referral can be the only response,
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 19]
but it won't be the only response in the common case). but it won't be the only response in the common case).
Continuation reference referrals and their schema are also Continuation reference referrals and their schema are also
defined in [RFC3296], with additional restrictions placed defined in [RFC3296], with additional restrictions placed
on their usage as described in [FIRS-CORE]. on their usage as described in [FIRS-CORE].
Whenever a referral is received in response to a query, the client Whenever a referral is received in response to a query, the client
is required to display any answer data which has also been is required to display any answer data which has also been
received and then process the referral. received and then process the referral.
LDAP referrals can use any kind of URL, although FIRS specifically LDAP referrals can use any kind of URL, although FIRS specifically
requires the use of LDAP URLs. The client is required to parse the requires the use of LDAP URLs. The client is required to parse the
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 19]
resulting URL for a host identifier, port number, search base, and resulting URL for a host identifier, port number, search base, and
assertion value elements, and then use these elements to construct assertion value elements, and then use these elements to construct
and issue new queries. and issue new queries.
Note that [RFC2251] defines a superior reference referral which is Note that [RFC2251] defines a superior reference referral which is
used as a "default referral" for out-of-scope searches. However, used as a "default referral" for out-of-scope searches. However,
FIRS specifically excludes support for superior reference FIRS specifically excludes support for superior reference
referrals. Any superior reference referrals which are encountered referrals. Any superior reference referrals which are encountered
as part of this service are to be treated as errors. as part of this service are to be treated as errors.
skipping to change at line 929 skipping to change at line 910
partition identifiers, search bases, and numerous other areas. In partition identifiers, search bases, and numerous other areas. In
order to ensure interoperability, all DNS domain names which are order to ensure interoperability, all DNS domain names which are
mapped to domainComponent attributes MUST be reduced to their mapped to domainComponent attributes MUST be reduced to their
ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined in ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined in
[RFC3490] before they are used for domainComponent sequences. [RFC3490] before they are used for domainComponent sequences.
Similarly, although DNS is technically capable of storing eight- Similarly, although DNS is technically capable of storing eight-
bit code-point values, the operational rules which govern DNS do bit code-point values, the operational rules which govern DNS do
not support this usage for domain names which are used as host not support this usage for domain names which are used as host
identifiers (and this includes zone delegations). As a result, identifiers (and this includes zone delegations). As a result,
internationalized domain names which are to be used for SRV or A internationalized domain names which are to be used for DNS
resource record lookups MUST be reduced to their ASCII-compatible lookups (such as queries for SRV resource records) MUST be reduced
to their ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 20] in [RFC3490] before these queries are issued.
form using the ToASCII process defined in [RFC3490] before these
DNS queries are issued.
In those cases where entries or attributes use normalized UTF-8 In those cases where entries or attributes use normalized UTF-8
sequences inside of FIRS (specifically domain names and email sequences inside of FIRS (specifically domain names and email
addresses), FIRS clients SHOULD offer ASCII-compatible versions of addresses), FIRS clients SHOULD offer ASCII-compatible versions of
those sequences, using the ToASCII process defined in [RFC3490]. those sequences, using the ToASCII process defined in [RFC3490].
This will ensure that clients are able to use these sequences with This will ensure that clients are able to use these sequences with
legacy (pre-IDNA) applications directly. For example, if an entry legacy (pre-IDNA) applications directly. For example, if an entry
displays an inetAssociatedDomains attribute, the domain names in displays an inetAssociatedDomains attribute, the domain names in
that attribute should be displayed in their default UTF-8 form that attribute should be displayed in their default UTF-8 form
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 20]
(assuming that the client's operating system and application (assuming that the client's operating system and application
allows it), but should also be made available in their ASCII- allows it), but should also be made available in their ASCII-
compatible form (either as a clipboard option, command-line compatible form (either as a clipboard option, command-line
option, or some other user-selectable switch) in order to allow option, or some other user-selectable switch) in order to allow
the data to be passed to a legacy application in a form which is the data to be passed to a legacy application in a form which is
understandable by that application. understandable by the legacy application.
Attribute names are fixed, and can therefore be localized easily. Attribute names are fixed, and can therefore be localized easily.
As such, clients MAY choose to convert attribute names into a As such, clients MAY choose to convert attribute names into a
language appropriate to the local user for display purposes if language appropriate to the local user for display purposes if
this is desirable. However, clients MUST NOT localize attribute this is desirable. However, clients MUST NOT localize attribute
names which are used for query input. For example, clients MUST names which are used for query input. For example, clients MUST
NOT convert "cn=" or "dc=" relative distinguished labels into a NOT convert "cn=" or "dc=" relative distinguished labels into a
language-specific mapping and then use the mapped versions of language-specific mapping and then use the mapped versions of
these labels for assertion values in a subsequent query. these labels for assertion values in a subsequent query.
RFC 2277 [RFC2277] requires free-text data to be tagged with RFC 2277 [RFC2277] requires free-text data to be tagged with
language tags. RFC 2596 [RFC2596] defines a mechanism for storing language tags. RFC 2596 [RFC2596] defines a mechanism for storing
language tags and language-specific attribute values, and these language tags and language-specific attribute values in LDAPv3,
mechanisms SHOULD be supported by FIRS clients and servers. For and these mechanisms SHOULD be supported by FIRS clients and
example, an organization name could be provided in English and servers. For example, an organization name could be provided in
Arabic, with the language tags allowing the client to display the English and Arabic, with the language tags allowing the client to
appropriate attribute value instance based on the locale settings display the appropriate attribute value instance based on the
of the user. locale settings of the user.
International postal regulations generally require that the International postal regulations generally require that the
recipient address on an envelope be provided in a language and recipient address on an envelope be provided in a language and
charset which is native to the recipient's country, with the charset which is native to the recipient's country, with the
exception of the destination country name which should be provided exception of the destination country name which should be provided
in a language and charset that is native to the sender's country. in a language and charset that is native to the sender's country.
This model ensures that the sender's post office will be able to This model ensures that the sender's post office will be able to
route the mail to the recipient's country, while also ensuring route the mail to the recipient's country, while also ensuring
that the destination country's post office will be able to perform that the destination country's post office will be able to perform
local delivery. In order to facilitate this usage, the country local delivery. In order to facilitate this usage, the country
attribute value MAY (encouraged) be localized to the local user's attribute value SHOULD be localized to the local user's
nomenclature for that country, but other postal address data
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 21]
nomenclature for a country, but other postal address information
SHOULD NOT be localized. SHOULD NOT be localized.
Notwithstanding the above, it is ENCOURAGED that contact names be Notwithstanding the above, contact names SHOULD be provided in
provided in English forms in order to facilitate inter-party English in order to facilitate inter-party communications, using
communications, using the mechanisms offered by [RFC2596]. For the mechanisms offered by [RFC2596]. For example, the default
example, the default contact entry for a person in Japan SHOULD be contact entry for a person in Japan SHOULD be provided in the
provided in the native form for that person, but an English form native form for that person, but an English form SHOULD also be
is also ENCOURAGED in order to allow non-Japanese users to provided in order to allow non-Japanese users to properly address
properly address that person in subsequent communications. As that person in subsequent communications. As stated in the
stated in the preceding paragraph however, any postal preceding paragraph however, any postal communications for that
communications for that person SHOULD use the native-language
representation (at least on the envelope) in order to facilitate Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 21]
the delivery of postal mail. person SHOULD use the native-language representation (at least on
the envelope) in order to facilitate delivery.
Time and date strings in LDAP use the generalizedTime syntax, Time and date strings in LDAP use the generalizedTime syntax,
making them predictable and easily convertible if necessary. As making them predictable and easily convertible if necessary. As
such, dates MAY be localized for display purposes by client such, dates MAY be localized for display purposes by client
applications as necessary. applications as necessary.
Finally, clients must recognize that some URL data is likely to be Finally, clients must recognize that some URL data is likely to be
escaped, using at least one of the multiple rules which affect escaped, using at least one of the multiple rules which affect
URLs and resource-specific data. For example, a URL which contains URLs and resource-specific data. For example, a URL which contains
a domain name resource could theoretically have been escaped with a domain name resource could theoretically have been escaped with
skipping to change at line 1020 skipping to change at line 1000
There are a handful of areas where FIRS does not fully compare There are a handful of areas where FIRS does not fully compare
with all of the existing WHOIS service offerings. These areas are with all of the existing WHOIS service offerings. These areas are
discussed in more detail below. discussed in more detail below.
7.1. NIC Handles 7.1. NIC Handles
Legacy NIC handles in existing databases can be accommodated using Legacy NIC handles in existing databases can be accommodated using
two possible mechanisms: two possible mechanisms:
* NIC handle output in legacy WHOIS systems may be replaced * NIC handle output in legacy WHOIS systems may be replaced
with email addresses for the contacts. This option with email addresses for the contacts, using mail domain
facilitates faster coalescence around the FIRS system. elements which refer to the operator's domain. For example,
the NIC handle of EH26 on Network Solutions' WHOIS server
* NIC handles can be converted into locally-scoped email could be replaced with "eh26@firs.netsol.com" or similar.
addresses. For example, the NIC handle of EH26 on Network This approach causes lookups for that email address to be
Solutions' WHOIS server could be replaced with the locally- directed towards the operator's FIRS servers, and
facilitates fast coalescence around the FIRS system.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 22] * Use the inetPrivateIdentifier attribute defined in [FIRS-
scoped email address of "ehall@whois.netsol.com" or some CORE]. This option provides a simple text string which can
variation thereof. be used for private identifiers, but provides no
integration with FIRS, other than allowing for attribute
value searches.
Of the two mechanisms described above, the former is preferred. Of the two mechanisms described above, the former is preferred.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 22]
7.2. Change-Logs 7.2. Change-Logs
Several WHOIS services provide pseudo change-logs in their Several WHOIS services provide pseudo change-logs in their
response data, listing each unique modification event which has response data, listing each unique modification event which has
occurred for a particular resource. For example, RIPE and some of occurred for a particular resource. For example, RIPE and some of
its member ccTLDs provide WHOIS output which includes a series of the ccTLDs provide WHOIS output which includes a series of
"changed" fields that itemize every modification event ("updated", "changed" fields that itemize every modification event ("updated",
"added", etc.), the modifier, and the modification date, which "added", etc.), the modifier, and the modification date, which
cumulatively act as a change-log for the resource in question. cumulatively act as a change-log for the resource in question.
Organizations are certainly free to maintain this information on Organizations are certainly free to maintain this information on
their internal systems (and are even encouraged to do so). their internal systems. However, this information is not necessary
However, this information is not necessary for public view of the for public view of the data in the FIRS service. Furthermore,
data in the FIRS service. Where the auditing information will be where auditing of this information will be required, a format
required, a format which is more suitable to legal review will which is suitable to legal review will also be required.
also be required.
Organizations who wish to make change-log information available to Organizations who wish to make change-log information available
the public should use an LDAP schema for this purpose. An initial should use an auxiliary LDAP schema for this purpose. An initial
schema has been developed for this purpose and is available at schema is available at http://www.ehsco.com/misc/draft-hall-ldap-
http://www.ehsco.com/misc/draft-hall-ldap-audit-00.txt. However, audit-00.txt, although it has not been proposed as a standards-
this schema has not yet been proposed as a standards-track effort, track effort, and should only be used as a starting point for
and should only be used as a starting point for other development. other development.
7.3. Legacy System Support
Organizations which already provide WHOIS services over TCP port
43 have several migration options. At the lowest extreme, these
organizations can continue to use and support those systems as-is,
without any modifications. However, other organizations may choose
to implement a FIRS client in a text-based application (such as a
Perl script), with that application accepting typical queries over
the legacy TCP/43 port, processing those queries through FIRS, and
returning answer data back to the legacy WHOIS client. Another
approach is described in draft-newton-whois-crisp-cohabitation-
00.txt, which advocates the use of NAPTR and SRV resource records
to redirect legacy clients to FIRS servers.
A similar range of options are available for back-end database
integration. Organizations who do not wish to align their back-end
databases to the LDAP/FIRS model can use basic scripts to generate
LDIF files on a suitable schedule, and then populate their LDAP
servers with this data. Meanwhile, other organizations may choose
to provide an LDAP front-end to an existing database, while other
organizations may choose to use a single LDAP repository for all
of their applications.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 23]
In general terms, FIRS does not require or endorse any of these
mechanisms, and they are only presented here so that operators are
aware of the options.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The FIRS collection of specifications describe an application of The FIRS collection of specifications describe an application of
the LDAPv3 protocol, and as such it inherits the security the LDAPv3 protocol, and as such it inherits the security
considerations associated with LDAPv3, as described in section 7 considerations associated with LDAPv3, as described in section 7
of [RFC2251]. of [RFC2251].
By nature, LDAP is a read-write protocol, while the legacy WHOIS By nature, LDAP is a read-write protocol. As such, there are
service has always been a read-only service. As such, there are significant risks associated with unintentionally allowing
significant risks associated with allowing unintended updates by unauthorized third-parties to update the underlying data.
unauthorized third-parties. Moreover, allowing the FIRS service to Moreover, allowing FIRS clients to update delegation data could
update the underlying delegation databases could result in network result in network resources being stolen from their lawful
resources being stolen from their lawful operators. For example, operators. For example, if the LDAP front-end had update access to
if the LDAP front-end had update access to a domain delegation a domain delegation database, a malicious third-party could
database, a malicious third-party could theoretically take theoretically take ownership of a domain by exploiting an
ownership of that domain by exploiting an authentication weakness, authentication weakness, thereby causing ownership of the domain
thereby causing ownership of the domain to be changed to another to be changed to another party. For this reason, it is imperative
that the FIRS service not be allowed to make critical
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 23] modifications to delegated resources without ensuring that all
party. For this reason, it is imperative that the FIRS service not possible precautions have been taken, potentially including strong
be allowed to make critical modifications to delegated resources authentication and encryption practices.
without ensuring that all possible precautions have been taken.
The query processing models described in this document make use of The query processing models described in these documents make use
DNS lookups in order to locate the LDAP servers associated with a of DNS lookups in order to locate the LDAP servers associated with
particular resource. DNS is susceptible to certain attacks and a particular resource. DNS is susceptible to certain attacks and
forgeries which may be used to redirect clients to LDAP servers forgeries which may be used to redirect clients to LDAP servers
which are not authoritative for the resource in question. which are not authoritative for the resource in question.
This document provides multiple query models which will cause the This document provides multiple query models which will cause the
same query to be answered by different servers (one would be same query to be answered by different servers (one would be
processed by a delegation entity, while another would be processed processed by a delegation entity, while another would be processed
by an operational entity). As a result, each of the servers may by an operational entity). As a result, each of the servers may
provide different information, depending upon the query type that provide different information, depending upon the query type that
was originally selected. was originally selected.
Some operators may choose to purposefully provide misleading or Some operators may choose to purposefully provide misleading or
erroneous information in an effort to avoid responsibility for bad erroneous information in an effort to avoid responsibility for bad
behavior. In addition, there are likely to be sporadic operator behavior. In addition, there are likely to be sporadic operator
errors which will result in confusing or erroneous answers. errors which will result in confusing or erroneous answers.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 24]
Neither this specification nor the LDAPv3 protocol currently Neither this specification nor the LDAPv3 protocol currently
provide cache timers or any other mechanisms which can indicate provide cache timers or any other mechanisms which can indicate
how accurate or timely any replicas may be. As a result, it is how accurate or timely any replicas may be. As a result, it is
possible for a replica to become significantly outdated, even to possible for a replica to become significantly outdated, even to
the point of containing wholesale errors. the point of containing wholesale errors.
For all of the reasons listed above, it is essential that For all of the reasons listed above, it is essential that
applications and end-users not make critical decisions based on applications and end-users not make critical decisions based on
the information provided by the FIRS service without having reason the information provided by the FIRS service without having reason
to believe the veracity of the information. Users should limit to believe the veracity of the information. Users should limit
skipping to change at line 1123 skipping to change at line 1134
ensure the veracity of the information, a minimal set of ensure the veracity of the information, a minimal set of
operational guidelines are provided herein. For the most part, operational guidelines are provided herein. For the most part,
these rules are designed to prevent unauthorized modifications to these rules are designed to prevent unauthorized modifications to
the data. the data.
Note that these rules only apply to data which is willingly Note that these rules only apply to data which is willingly
provided; no data is required to be entered, but where the data is provided; no data is required to be entered, but where the data is
provided, it SHOULD be validated as accurate on entry, and it MUST provided, it SHOULD be validated as accurate on entry, and it MUST
be secured against unauthorized modifications. be secured against unauthorized modifications.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 24]
* The inetResources container entry and all of the resource- * The inetResources container entry and all of the resource-
specific subordinate entries within every public DIT that specific subordinate entries within every public DIT that
provides FIRS resources SHOULD have anonymous read-only provides FIRS resources SHOULD have anonymous read-only
access permissions, and SHOULD NOT have anonymous add, access permissions, and MUST NOT have anonymous add, delete
delete or modify permissions. or modify permissions.
* With the exception of contact-related attributes from the * With the exception of contact-related attributes from the
inetOrgPerson object class, each attribute MAY have inetOrgPerson object class, each attribute MAY have
whatever restrictions are necessary in order to suit local whatever restrictions are necessary in order to suit local
security policies, government regulations or personal security policies, government regulations or personal
privacy concerns. When the inetOrgPerson object class is privacy concerns. When the inetOrgPerson object class is
used to provide contact details, the mail attribute MUST be used to provide contact details, the mail attribute MUST be
defined, SHOULD be valid, SHOULD have read-only anonymous defined, SHOULD be valid, SHOULD have anonymous read-only
access, and SHOULD NOT have anonymous add, delete or modify access, and MUST NOT have anonymous add, delete or modify
permissions. permissions.
By using the inetOrgPerson object class, it is expected By using the inetOrgPerson object class, it is expected
that existing contact-related entries can be reused. If that existing contact-related entries can be reused. If
reusing these entries is undesirable or unfeasible, entries reusing these entries is undesirable or unfeasible, entries
with the necessary access SHOULD be made available. with the necessary access SHOULD be made available.
Note that contact pointers are entirely optional and are Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 25]
not required to exist. However, where they exist, they MUST
comply with the above requirements.
* End-users and implementers SHOULD provide anonymous access * End-users and implementers SHOULD provide anonymous access
to the creatorsName, createTimestamp, modifiersName and to the creatorsName, createTimestamp, modifiersName and
modifyTimestamp operational attributes associated with each modifyTimestamp operational attributes associated with each
entry in the inetResources branch, since this information entry in the inetResources branch, since this information
is useful for determining the age of the information. is useful for determining the age of the underlying data.
* Server administrators MAY define additional add, delete or * Server operators MAY define additional add, delete or
modify permissions for authenticated users, using any modify permissions for authenticated users, using any
LDAPv3 authentication mechanisms they wish. In particular, LDAPv3 authentication mechanisms they wish. In particular,
delegation entities MAY provide for the remote management delegation entities MAY provide for the remote management
of delegated resources (such as assigning modification of delegated resources (such as assigning modification
privileges to the managers of a particular delegated domain privileges to the managers of a particular delegated domain
or address block), although this is entirely optional, and or address block), although this is entirely optional, and
is within the sole discretion of the delegation body. is within the sole discretion of the delegation body.
* In the general case, server operators SHOULD NOT offer
clear-text authentication mechanisms over unencrypted
connections.
Finally, there are physical security issues associated with any Finally, there are physical security issues associated with any
service which provides physical addressing and delivery service which provides physical addressing and delivery
information. Although organizations are generally encouraged to information.
provide as much information as they feel comfortable with, no
information is required. In summary, organizations MAY provide as much data as possible,
although no information is required.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 25]
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
The FIRS collection of specifications define an application of the The FIRS collection of specifications define an application of the
LDAPv3 protocol rather than a new Internet application protocol. LDAPv3 protocol rather than a new Internet application protocol.
As such, there are no protocol-related IANA considerations. As such, there are no protocol-related IANA considerations.
However, the FIRS collection of specifications do define several However, the FIRS collection of specifications do define several
LDAP schema elements, including object classes, attributes, LDAP schema elements, including object classes, attributes,
syntaxes and extensibleMatch filters, and these elements should be syntaxes and extensibleMatch filters, and these elements should be
assigned OID values from the IANA branch. Furthermore, some of the assigned OID values from the IANA branch. Furthermore, some of the
specifications define their own status codes as attribute values, specifications define their own status codes as attribute values,
and IANA is expected to maintain the code-point mapping values and IANA is expected to maintain the code-point mapping values
associated with these attributes. associated with these attributes.
Finally, some of the specifications also describe public DNS and Finally, some of the specifications also describe public DNS and
LDAP servers and data. It is expected that IANA will see to the LDAP servers and data. It is expected that IANA will see to the
establishment and maintenance of these servers and data. establishment and maintenance of these servers and data.
10. Author's Address Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 26]
10. Normative References
Eric A. Hall
ehall@ehsco.com
11. Normative References
[CRISP-REQ] Newton, A. "Cross Registry Internet Service [CRISP-REQ] Newton, A. "Cross Registry Internet Service
Protocol (CRISP) Requirements", draft-ietf- Protocol (CRISP) Requirements", draft-ietf-
crisp-requirements-05, May 2003. crisp-requirements-05, July 2003.
[FIRS-ARCH] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry [FIRS-ARCH] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
Service: Architecture and Implementation Service: Architecture and Implementation
Guide", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01, May Guide", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-02, July
2003. 2003.
[FIRS-ASN] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Autonomous [FIRS-ASN] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Autonomous
System Numbers in the Federated Internet System Numbers in the Federated Internet
Registry Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn- Registry Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-
01, May 2003. 02, July 2003.
[FIRS-CONTCT] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Contact [FIRS-CONTCT] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Contact
Persons in the Federated Internet Registry Persons in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01, Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02,
May 2003. July 2003.
[FIRS-CORE] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry [FIRS-CORE] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
Service: Core Elements", draft-ietf-crisp- Service: Core Elements", draft-ietf-crisp-
firs-core-01, May 2003. firs-core-02, July 2003.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 26]
[FIRS-DNS] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Domains in [FIRS-DNS] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Domains in
the Federated Internet Registry Service", the Federated Internet Registry Service",
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-01, May 2003. draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-02, July 2003.
[FIRS-DNSRR] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Resource [FIRS-DNSRR] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Resource
Records in the Federated Internet Registry Records in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-01, May Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-02, July
2003. 2003.
[FIRS-IPV4] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv4 Address [FIRS-IPV4] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv4 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-01, May Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-02, July
2003. 2003.
[FIRS-IPV6] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv6 Address [FIRS-IPV6] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv6 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-01, May Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-02, July
2003. 2003.
[RFC1274] Barker, P., and Kille, S. "The COSINE and [ISO10646] "ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000. International Standard
Internet X.500 Schema", RFC 1274, November -- Information technology -- Universal
1991. Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) --
Part 1: Architecture and Basic Multilingual
Plane"
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 27]
[RFC2079] Smith, M. "Definition of an X.500 Attribute [RFC2079] Smith, M. "Definition of an X.500 Attribute
Type and an Object Class to Hold Uniform Type and an Object Class to Hold Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 2079, Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 2079,
January 1997. January 1997.
[RFC2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R., [RFC2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R.,
and Sataluri, S. "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 and Sataluri, S. "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500
DNs", RFC 2247, January 1998. DNs", RFC 2247, January 1998.
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F. "UTF-8, a transformation format of
ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S. [RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S.
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)", "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)",
RFC 2251, December 1997. RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and Kille, [RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and Kille,
S. "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol S. "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252,
December 1997. December 1997.
[RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and Howes, T. [RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and Howes, T.
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
UTF-8 String Representation of DNs", RFC 2253, UTF-8 String Representation of DNs", RFC 2253,
December 1997. December 1997.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 27]
[RFC2254] Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP [RFC2254] Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP
Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997. Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997.
[RFC2255] Howes, T., and Smith, M. "The LDAP URL [RFC2255] Howes, T., and Smith, M. "The LDAP URL
Format", RFC 2255, December 1997. Format", RFC 2255, December 1997.
[RFC2256] Wahl, M. "A Summary of the X.500(96) User [RFC2256] Wahl, M. "A Summary of the X.500(96) User
Schema for use with LDAPv3", RFC 2256, Schema for use with LDAPv3", RFC 2256,
December 1997. December 1997.
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H. "IETF Policy on Character Sets [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H. "IETF Policy on Character Sets
and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January
1998. 1998.
[RFC2308] Andrews, M. "Negative Caching of DNS Queries [RFC2279] Yergeau, F. "UTF-8, a transformation format of
(DNS NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998. ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
[RFC2596] Wahl, M., and Howes, T. "Use of Language Codes [RFC2596] Wahl, M., and Howes, T. "Use of Language Codes
in LDAP", RFC 2596, May 1999. in LDAP", RFC 2596, May 1999.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and Esibov, L. "A [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and Esibov, L. "A
DNS RR for specifying the location of services DNS RR for specifying the location of services
(DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000.
[RFC2798] Smith, M. "Definition of the inetOrgPerson [RFC2798] Smith, M. "Definition of the inetOrgPerson
LDAP Object Class", RFC 2798, April 2000. LDAP Object Class", RFC 2798, April 2000.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 28]
[RFC3296] Zeilenga, K. "Named Subordinate References in [RFC3296] Zeilenga, K. "Named Subordinate References in
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Directories", RFC 3296, July 2002. Directories", RFC 3296, July 2002.
[RFC3377] Hodges, J., and Morgan, R. "Lightweight [RFC3377] Hodges, J., and Morgan, R. "Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical
Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002. Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and Costello, A. [RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and Costello, A.
"Internationalizing Domain Names in "Internationalizing Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003. Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[US-ASCII] Cerf, V. "ASCII format for Network [US-ASCII] Cerf, V. "ASCII format for Network
Interchange", RFC 20, October 1969. Interchange", RFC 20, October 1969.
12. Informational References 11. Informational References
[RFC812] Harrenstien, K., and White, V. [RFC812] Harrenstien, K., and White, V.
"NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC 812, March 1982. "NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC 812, March 1982.
13. Acknowledgments 12. Changes from Previous Versions
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 28]
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Portions of this document were funded by Verisign Labs.
The first version of this specification was co-authored by Andrew draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-02:
Newton of Verisign Labs, and subsequent versions continue to be
developed with his active participation.
14. Changes from Previous Versions * Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01:
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made. * Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-00: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-00:
* Restructured document set, separating the architectural * Restructured document set, separating the architectural
discussion from the technical descriptions. discussion from the technical descriptions.
skipping to change at line 1354 skipping to change at line 1352
* As a result of the formation of the CRISP working group, * As a result of the formation of the CRISP working group,
the original monolithic document has been broken into the original monolithic document has been broken into
multiple documents, with draft-ietf-crisp-lw-core multiple documents, with draft-ietf-crisp-lw-core
describing the core service, while related documents describing the core service, while related documents
describe the per-resource schema and access mechanisms. describe the per-resource schema and access mechanisms.
* References to the ldaps: URL scheme have been removed, * References to the ldaps: URL scheme have been removed,
since there is no standards-track specification for the since there is no standards-track specification for the
ldaps: scheme. ldaps: scheme.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 29]
* An acknowledgements section was added. * An acknowledgements section was added.
draft-hall-ldap-whois-01: draft-hall-ldap-whois-01:
* The "Objectives" section has been removed. [ir-dir-req] is * The "Objectives" section has been removed. [ir-dir-req] is
now being used as the guiding document for this service. now being used as the guiding document for this service.
* Several typographical errors have been fixed. * Several typographical errors have been fixed.
* Some unnecessary text has been removed. * Some unnecessary text has been removed.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 29]
* Figures changed to show complete sets of object classes, to * Figures changed to show complete sets of object classes, to
improve inheritance visibility. improve inheritance visibility.
* Clarified the handling of reverse-lookup domains (zones * Clarified the handling of reverse-lookup domains (zones
within the in-addr.arpa portion of the DNS hierarchy) in within the in-addr.arpa portion of the DNS hierarchy) in
the inetDnsDomain object class reference text. the inetDnsDomain object class reference text.
* Referrals now use regular LDAP URLs (multiple responses * Referrals now use regular LDAP URLs (multiple responses
with explicit hostnames and port numbers). Prior editions with explicit hostnames and port numbers). Prior editions
of this specification used LDAP SRV resource records for of this specification used LDAP SRV resource records for
skipping to change at line 1400 skipping to change at line 1398
generalized disclaimers. generalized disclaimers.
* Added the inetAssociatedResources auxiliary object class * Added the inetAssociatedResources auxiliary object class
for defining associated resources, and moved some of the IP for defining associated resources, and moved some of the IP
addressing and ASN attributes to the new object class. addressing and ASN attributes to the new object class.
* Several attributes had their OIDs changed. NOTE THAT THIS * Several attributes had their OIDs changed. NOTE THAT THIS
IS AN INTERNET DRAFT, AND THAT THE OIDS ARE SUBJECT TO IS AN INTERNET DRAFT, AND THAT THE OIDS ARE SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS THIS DOCUMENT IS EDITED. ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS THIS DOCUMENT IS EDITED.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 30]
13. Author's Address
Eric A. Hall
ehall@ehsco.com
14. Acknowledgments
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Portions of this document were funded by VeriSign Labs.
The first version of this specification was co-authored by Andrew
Newton of VeriSign Labs, and subsequent versions continue to be
developed with his active participation. Edward Lewis and Peter
Gietz also contributed significant feedback to this specification
in the later stages of its developments.
15. Full Copyright Statement 15. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared,
copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without
restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice
and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative
works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any
way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 30]
Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed
for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards
process must be followed, or as required to translate it into process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English. languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on This document and the information contained herein is provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 31] Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 31]
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/