INTERNET-DRAFT Eric A. Hall
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-02.txt July draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-03.txt August 2003
Expires: February, March, 2004
The Federated Internet Registry Service:
Architecture and Implementation Guide
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document describes the architectural framework for the
Federated Internet Registry Service (FIRS), a distributed service
for storing, locating and transferring information about Internet
resources using LDAPv3.
Table of Contents
2. Prerequisites and Terminology..............................5 Terminology..............................6
3. Reference Example..........................................6
4. The FIRS Namespace.........................................7 Namespace.........................................8
4.1. The domainComponent Hierarchy...........................7 Hierarchy...........................8
4.2. The inetResources Container.............................8 Container.............................9
4.3. Resource-Specific Entries...............................9 Entries..............................10
4.4. Namespace Aliases.......................................9 Attribute References...................................10
4.5. Namespace Aliases......................................10
4.6. Partition Replicas.....................................10 Replicas.....................................11
5. FIRS Schema Definitions...................................11 Definitions...................................12
5.1. Global Schema..........................................11 Schema..........................................13
5.1.1. The inetResources schema.........................12 schema.........................13
5.1.2. The inetAssociatedResources schema...............13 schema...............14
5.1.3. The referral schema..............................13 schema..............................14
5.2. Resource-Specific Schema...............................13 Schema...............................14
6. Query Processing Behaviors................................14 Behaviors................................15
6.1. Query Pre-Processing...................................15 Pre-Processing...................................16
6.2. Bootstrap Processing...................................16 Processing...................................18
6.3. Query Processing.......................................17 Processing.......................................19
6.4. Query Post-Processing..................................18 Post-Processing..................................20
6.4.1. Referrals........................................19 Referrals........................................20
6.4.2. Internationalization and localization............20 localization............21
6.5. Query Restriction Mechanisms...........................23
7. Transition Issues.........................................22 Issues.........................................24
7.1. NIC Handles............................................22 Handles............................................24
7.2. Change-Logs............................................23 Change-Logs............................................25
7.3. Legacy System Support..................................23 Support..................................25
8. Security Considerations...................................24 Considerations...................................26
9. IANA Considerations.......................................26 Considerations.......................................28
10. Normative References......................................27 References......................................29
11. Informational References..................................29 References..................................31
12. Changes from Previous Versions............................29 Versions............................31
13. Author's Address..........................................31 Address..........................................33
14. Acknowledgments...........................................31 Acknowledgments...........................................33
15. Full Copyright Statement..................................31 Statement..................................33
Hall I-D Expires: February March 2004 [page 2]
FIRS is intended to provide a distributed WHOIS-like information
service, using the LDAPv3 specifications [RFC3377] for the data-
formatting and query-transport functions.
The original WHOIS service [RFC812] was provided as a front-end to
a centralized repository of ARPANET resources and users. Over
time, hundreds of WHOIS servers have been deployed across the
public Internet, with each server providing general information
about the particular network resources under the control of a
Unfortunately, neither [RFC812] nor any of its successors define a
strict set of data-typing or formatting requirements, and as a
result, each of the different implementations provide different
kinds of information in slightly different ways. Furthermore, each
WHOIS server operates as a self-contained entity, with no
standardized mechanisms to infer knowledge of any other servers,
meaning that WHOIS servers cannot redirect clients to other
servers for additional information. Another concern is that the
WHOIS services which are being operated today offer no means of
client authentication, requiring that server operators essentially
publish all data with a single "world-readable" permission even
though this single permission often conflicts with the privacy and
security policies of specific jurisdictions.
There are many other secondary issues with the WHOIS service as it
exists in current form. However, the largest problems are a lack
of standardized data formats, a lack of widely-supported referral
mechanisms, and a lack of privacy and security controls, as
described in the preceding text.
FIRS attempts to address these issues by defining guidelines for
the operation of a distributed and highly-structured WHOIS-like
service, using LDAPv3 for the query/response transfer service, and
using LDAP schema for the search inputs, answer data, and
redirection mechanisms. In short, the intention of this approach
is to provide an extensible and scalable WHOIS-like service by
leveraging the inherent capabilities of LDAPv3.
Hall I-D Expires: February March 2004 [page 3]
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 under top-level domains),
but also includes delegations from authorized bodies further down
the delegation path (such as leaf-node DNS domain names within the
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-
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 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 March 2004 [page 4]
define the technical details for the service as a whole or for the
Cumulatively, the FIRS collection of specifications define the
following service elements:
* Namespace Rules. The FIRS specifications define a layered
namespace consisting of DNS-based delegation hierarchies, a
FIRS-specific container entry, and resource-specific
* Schema Definitions. The FIRS specifications reuse some
existing LDAP schema definitions, and also define several
FIRS-specific definitions, as needed.
* Query-Processing Rules. The FIRS specifications also reuse
some existing processing rules, and define several
additional rules as needed. Among these rules are
requirements for normalizing data, locating servers,
processing referrals, and more.
Meanwhile, the core collection of FIRS specifications define these
naming, schema and processing rules apply for the following kinds of
* Partition Data. Each partition in the globally distributed
database provides information about the partition itself,
allowing users to get a sense of who is providing the architecture data.
* Domain Name Resources. Any DNS domain name (including zone
delegations and host-specific resources) can be tracked in
the FIRS directory, with information about the domain
resource being provided by registries, registrars, or
operators, individually or collectively.
* Network Block Resources. Any IP address block (including v4
or v6 networks or host-specific addresses) or Autonomous
System can be tracked in the FIRS directory, with
information about the network resource being provided by
regional registries, registrars, or operators, individually
* Contacts. Each partition and network resource has multiple
role-specific contact definitions, any of which can refer
to generic role accounts or to actual persons, according to
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 5]
policy and/or desire. Any partition can provide any degree
of data about the contact entries under their control.
* Cross-Partition Pointers. Entries can act as a whole, while aliases to
other rules apply entries, or can point to specific kinds other entries as sources of Internet resources.
additional data. Meanwhile, attribute values for well-known
resources can provide pointers to related data, such as
providing a contact identifier that refers to a contact in
Cumulatively, this architecture provides a substrate of well-
formed data which is highly-distributed across independent
partitions and servers, while providing multiple "stovepipe"
applications of that data.
2. Prerequisites and Terminology
The complete set of specifications in the FIRS collection
cumulative define a structured and distributed information service
using LDAPv3 for the data-formatting and transport functions. This
specification should be read in the context of that set, which
currently includes [FIRS-CORE], [FIRS-DNS], [FIRS-DNSRR],
[FIRS-CONTCT], [FIRS-ASN], [FIRS-IPV4] and [FIRS-IPV6].
In order to fully understand FIRS, readers should be familiar with
[RFC2247], [RFC2251], [RFC2252], [RFC2253], [RFC2254], [RFC2256],
[RFC2798], [RFC3296]and [RFC3377].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 5]
3. Reference Example
Figure 1 below shows an
For the purpose of subsequent discussion, a visual example of a FIRS-specific data-set.
typical partition is provided below. This
example data-set is referenced throughout this specification.
[top object class]
[inetResources object class] not intended
to provide a complete demonstration of all the capabilities in
FIRS, but instead is only intended for illustration purposes. Each
of the resource-specific specifications provide additional
examples and illustrations which provide more detail.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 6]
Figure 1 below shows an example of a FIRS-specific data-set.
[top object class]
[inetResources object class]
| value: "email@example.com"
| [top object class]
| [inetResources object class]
| [inetOrgPerson object class]
| +-attribute: mail
| value: "firstname.lastname@example.org"
| [top object class]
| [inetResources object class]
| [inetDnsDomain object class]
| [inetDnsRR object class]
| +-attribute: inetDnsAuthServers inetDnsRRData
| value: "ns1.example.net" "NS 86400 864000 ns1.example.net"
[top object class]
[inetResources object class]
[inetDnsDomain object class]
[referral object class]
| value: "email@example.com"
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
in conjunction with FIRS-specific schema. FIRS clients use FIRS-
specific queries to navigate and retrieve the data, as needed.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 7]
4. The FIRS Namespace
A critical aspect of FIRS is the use of an application-specific
namespace which is imposed on all FIRS-based resources. The FIRS
namespace rules facilitate the programmatic creation of searches,
and help to ensure predictable results.
The FIRS namespace consists of three "layers", which are:
* A set of domainComponent relative distinguished names which
cumulatively identify a specific partition of the global
* A FIRS-specific container entry which segregates the
resource-specific child entries from other LDAP data.
* The resource-specific entries which describe the managed
resources in the selected partition.
The namespace follows a right-to-left order.
As an example, Figure 1 shows a DNS domain resource entry named
"cn=example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com", which refers
to the "example.com" domain resource within the "cn=inetResources"
container under the "dc=example,dc=com" directory partition.
4.1. The domainComponent Hierarchy
The top-level of the namespace uses the domainComponent naming and
mapping rules specified in RFC 2247 [RFC2247], which maps DNS
domain names to domainComponent ("dc=") relative distinguished
names (RDNs). The full sequence of domainComponent RDNs
cumulatively represents a partition in the LDAP directory tree.
In this model, a sequence of domainComponent RDNs map to a domain
name in the global DNS hierarchy, with a FIRS partition having an
identical scope of authority as its domain name counterpart.
Furthermore, the SRV resource records associated with those DNS
domains also provide a mechanism 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
set of resources, partitions which overlap also have overlapping
scopes of control. For example, the "dc=com" and
"dc=example,dc=com" partitions can both provide information about
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 8]
the "www.example.com" domain name resource. In order to reduce the
amount of ambiguity which is naturally present in this kind of
model, FIRS defines multiple bootstrapping models and also defines
the default model which should be used for any given resource. For
example, queries for centrally-delegated resources are supposed to
ask the top-level partition for information about those resources,
while queries for user-managed resources are supposed to ask the
leaf-node partition for information about those resources.
Figure 1 shows the directory partition of "dc=example,dc=com"
which maps to the "example.com" scope of authority from the DNS
hierarchy, with the "dc=example,dc=com" sequence representing a
distinct partition in the globally 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
This specification requires the use of a mandatory LDAP container
entry with the RDN of "cn=inetResources", which MUST exist at the
root of every directory partition that provides FIRS services. All
publicly-accessible resource-specific FIRS-related entries MUST be
stored in the "cn=inetResources" container entry.
The primary motivation for this naming rule is for predictability,
in that it allows searches to be formed programmatically (a search
base for resources in "dc=example,dc=com" can be programmatically
formed as "cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com", for example).
Furthermore, the use of a single container entry for all of an
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
the server, which facilitates better operational security and
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 9]
All told, the use of the inetResources container is important
enough to justify the MANDATORY usage of this naming syntax.
4.3. Resource-Specific Entries
The FIRS collection of specifications define several Internet
resource types, each of which have their own naming rules.
However, each resource type follows a consistent naming principle,
in that each specific resource has an RDN which uniquely
identifies that resource within the inetResources container entry.
For example, Figure 1 shows an entry for the "www.example.com"
domain name resource in the "cn=inetResources" container of the
"dc=example,dc=com" partition, and also shows an entry for the
"firstname.lastname@example.org" contact resource in that same container and
partition. Although the naming syntax is different for each
resource type, the naming rules are consistent and facilitate
The naming rules for each of the distinct resource type are
provided in the documents which govern those resource types.
4.4. Attribute References
Most of the core attributes that refer to one of the other core
attributes provide entry names as data values. In this model, an
attribute which needs to identify a particular resource provides
the name of the target resource as the attribute value, with the
client using this data to instantiate any new queries which may be
requested by the user.
For example, many of the object classes provide "contact"
attributes, each of which provide one or more contact identifiers
as attribute values (such as providing "account@registry" or
"user@domain", or both of these identifiers). If the user wishes
to obtain more information about any of the listed contacts, they
would use the identifier value to start a new query (in turn,
these queries may further reference additional entries in the
global system, either through the use of referrals or with
additional attribute pointers).
4.5. Namespace Aliases
FIRS allows entries to alias for other entries through the use of
referrals. Referrals represent one of the strongest capabilities
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 10]
of the FIRS architecture, in that they allow for a significant
variety of cross-referencing among entries.
For example, referrals a referral can be used to point an inetResources container create a placeholder entry in one
partition to another inetResources container entry in another
partition, allowing multiple partitions to effectively share a
single partition (this is useful when organizations manage
multiple networks or domains, and wish to consolidate their
management). As another example, referrals can also be used to
create placeholder entries
for specific resources (such as a web server), with that entry
only existing as a referral for a resource which is managed in
another partition (such as a web-
hosting web-hosting server at an ISP), with both entries providing information
about that resource. ISP). This latter example can be seen
concept is illustrated in Figure 1, which shows an entry for
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 9] that
provides a referral to with the "cn=host.example.net" inetDnsDomainMatch matching filter
value of "cn=www-1.example.net", which would result in an entirely
new query for that intDnsDomain entry at
"cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=net". Queries being started (including new
lookups for the authoritative partition, and so forth).
Referrals can also be created as subordinate entries underneath a
canonical entry. In that model, any data for the local entry resource
would be answered with the locally-available information returned, and then
redirected to the would also be accompanied by a referral target to
another entry on another server, where additional information
about the named resource could be retrieved.
FIRS supports two different kinds of LDAP referrals, which are
subordinate reference referrals and continuation reference
referrals. Subordinate reference referrals indicate that the
search base used in the query only exists as an alias to another
partition or entry, meaning that the entire query must be
restarted in order for any answer data to be retrieved. Meanwhile,
continuation reference referrals indicate that some answer data is
available, but that more information is available at some other
location, and that the client should start new queries in order to
retrieve all of the information.
Referrals are provided as URLs. FIRS specifically requires the use
of LDAP URLs in order to ensure predictable automated processing.
Refer to section 6.4.1 for a brief discussion on how these URLs
are processed by FIRS clients.
4.6. Partition Replicas
All directory partitions which provide data for global Internet
resources SHOULD be replicated across two or more servers. Each of
the authoritative LDAP servers for the managed resource MUST be
specified with a unique DNS SRV resource record.
Directory partitions which serve multiple organizations SHOULD
also be replicated. For example, an ISP which provides FIRS
services for their customers SHOULD also follow these same rules,
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 11]
since outages of those servers will affect multiple parties. Leaf-
node directory partitions associated with user-managed resources
MAY replicate their partitions, but are not required to do so.
Note that the most effective replication strategy will be for
entities to replicate their directory partitions with their
delegation parents, as this will allow queries for those resources
to be processed by the parent servers (thereby eliminating the
need for an immediate referral). In many cases, this will not be
feasible (the servers for the "dc=com" directory partition cannot
be expected to host replicas of every subordinate directory
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
serve as multi-replica masters, effectively acting as large-scale
caching servers for many different resources. When used in
conjunction with the targeted bootstrap model described in section
6.4.1, this will allow clients to retrieve a significant amount of
information without having to pursue a large number of referrals
or redirects. This usage is expected and endorsed.
Note that the LDAP specifications do not currently provide cache
timers or any other mechanisms which can indicate how accurate or
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
5. FIRS Schema Definitions
Another critical aspect of FIRS is the use of well-known schema,
including object classes, attributes, syntaxes and matching
filters. Some of the schema definitions are for the global FIRS
service and are usable by all entries (including resource-specific
entries), while others are specific to particular resource-types.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 12]
For new services, pre-existing schema definitions SHOULD be reused
if they are suitable, since this facilitates integration with
other LDAP applications.
5.1. Global Schema
There are three global schema definitions which can be used by any
of the entries within FIRS. These include:
* The "inetResources" master schema. All FIRS-related entries
(including the inetResources container entry and all of the
resource-specific subordinate entries) MUST use the
inetResources structural object class and schema
definitions defined in [FIRS-CORE]. The inetResources
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 11]
object class defines a variety of general-purpose
attributes which are useful for general information about
an organization and its resources.
* Associated resources. All FIRS-related entries MAY use the
"inetAssociatedResources" auxiliary object class and schema
definitions defined in [FIRS-CORE]. This object class
provides cross-reference pointer attributes which allow an
entry to reference other resources which may be of interest
to other users or applications.
* Referral pointers. All FIRS-related entries MAY use the
"referral" object class and schema definitions defined in
[RFC3296]. This object class allows an entry to exist as a
referral source, with queries for that resource being
redirected to the referral target. Refer to section 4.4 for
a discussion on the different kinds of referral mechanisms
offered by FIRS, and section 6.4.1 for a discussion on the
FIRS referral-processing mechanisms.
Figure 1 shows that all of the entries within and including the
"cn=inetResources" container entry have the inetResources object
class defined. Meanwhile, each of the resource-specific entries in
that example also have their own resource-specific object classes,
while the "cn=www.example.com" resource-specific entry also has
the referral object class defined.
5.1.1. The inetResources schema
The inetResources object class is intended to provide summary
information about a collection of resources under the control of a
single organization or management body. Since this object class is
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 13]
also inherited by the resource-specific object classes, these
attributes can be defined at each of the subordinate entries if a
global set of attribute values is undesirable or unfeasible.
Since multiple directory partitions can use subordinate reference
referrals to share a single common inetResources entry, it is
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
private company to use a shared set of inetResources attributes
for their DNS domain names and IP network blocks, but it would
probably be counter-productive for a global ISP to share contact
data across all of their hosted domains and routed networks. If
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
the inetResources entry.
The inetResources object class provides several multi-valued
contact-related attributes for a variety of well-known
administrative roles. This model allows the inetResources entry
and each of the subordinate managed resources to share a common
set of administrative roles, or to have unique roles for each
resource, as seen fit by the managing entity.
5.1.2. The inetAssociatedResources schema
The inetAssociatedResources object class defines attributes which
are useful for providing general-purpose cross-referencing
information with other resources. For example, a contact entry can
list IPv4 networks or DNS domains as associated resources, thereby
providing a simplistic cross-reference mechanism between an
administrator and the resources he manages. In short, any of the
common resource types can be associated with any other resource
through the use of this object class.
5.1.3. The referral schema
The referral object class is used to redirect queries to other
entries programmatically. This object class and its associated
schema and rules provide the backbone of the aliasing mechanisms
discussed in section 4.4.
5.2. Resource-Specific Schema
In addition to the global schema definitions, each of the
resource-specific entries in FIRS MUST use the resource-specific
schema definitions defined for use with that specific resource
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 14]
type. These object classes are defined in the specifications which
govern the different resource-types. These include:
* DNS domains. Every domain name resource entry MUST use the
inetDnsDomain object class and schema definitions defined
in [FIRS-DNS]. These entries can refer to zone delegations,
host-specific entries, reverse-lookup pointer entries, or
any other domain name.
* DNS resource-records. Any domain name resource MAY use the
inetDnsRR object class and schema definitions defined in
[FIRS-DNSRR]. The inetDnsRR object class defines a single
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 13]
optional attribute for storing multiple DNS resource
records as supplemental data to a domain name entry.
* IPv4 address blocks. Every IPv4 address block resource MUST
use the inetIpv4Network object class and schema definitions
defined in [FIRS-IPV4]. Entries can refer to entire
networks or to single hosts, as needed.
* IPv6 address blocks. Every IPv6 address block resource MUST
use the inetIpv6Network object class and schema definitions
defined in [FIRS-IPV6]. Entries can refer to entire
networks or to single hosts, as needed.
* Autonomous system numbers. Every autonomous system number
resource MUST use the inetAsNumber object class and schema
definitions defined in [FIRS-ASN].
* Contacts. Every contact entry MUST use the inetOrgPerson
object class defined in [RFC2798], but MUST also use the
additional schema definitions defined in [FIRS-CONTCT].
As was discussed in section 5.1, each resource-specific entry MAY
exist as a referral source, or MAY have attributes which refer to
additional (related) resources.
6. Query Processing Behaviors
Another critical aspect to FIRS is the query-processing behavioral
rules which govern the ways in which a client parses an input
string, locates a server which is authoritative for the resource
being queried, generates LDAPv3 queries, and processes the
resulting answer data. More specifically:
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 15]
* Query pre-processing. Portions of this process require the
client to determine the type of resource being queried for,
and to determine the initial partition which should be used
for the query. Since this process is different for each
particular resource-type, the rules which govern this
behavior are defined in each of the resource-specific
* Bootstrap processing. Once a resource-type and partition
have been determined, the client must locate the LDAP
servers which are authoritative for that partition. [FIRS-
CORE] defines three different bootstrap models that clients
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
are to be used for each particular resource-type.
* Query processing. Once a server has been located, the
client must submit the LDAP query which was formed during
the pre-preprocessing phase. [FIRS-CORE] defines certain
LDAPv3 query parameters which all FIRS clients MUST conform
with, while the resource-specific specifications define
resource-specific matching rules.
* Query post-processing. Response data frequently needs to be
further processed. For example, referrals may need to be
processed, or some kinds of data may need to be localized.
These mechanisms and their behavioral rules are defined in
[FIRS-CORE], while the resource-specific specifications may
also describe supplemental rules.
Each of these phases are discussed in more detail below.
6.1. Query Pre-Processing
Client input is generally limited to a single well-formed unit of
data, such as a domain name ("example.com") or an email address
("email@example.com"), and this single piece of information must
be used to subsequently build a fully-formed LDAPv3 query,
including the assertion value, the search base, the matching
filter, and so forth. All of these steps are part of the pre-
Although the exact sequence of steps will vary according to the
resource-type being queried, there are some commonalities between
each of them. Among these steps:
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 16]
* Determine the resource type. Different kinds of resources
have different processing steps, validation mechanisms, and
so forth, each of which require that the resource-type be
appropriately identified. Clients MAY use any mechanisms
necessary to force this determination.
* Validate and normalize the data. In all cases, the input
data MUST be validated and normalized according to the
syntax rules defined in the specification which governs the
resource-type. As an example of this step, queries for
internationalized domain names must be validated and
normalized into a canonical UTF-8 [RFC2279] form before any
other steps can be taken. Similarly, IP addresses are
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 15]
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
named resource. In most cases, the authoritative partition
will be a variation of the input query string, but this is
not always the case. For example, the default partition for
an email address will be extrapolated from the domain
component of the email address itself, while the
authoritative partition for an autonomous system number
uses a reserved (special-purpose) domain name. In some
cases, the authoritative partition may change during the
subsequent query-processing steps.
* Determine the search base for the query. Each resource type
has resource-specific query-processing rules which will
dictate how the authoritative partitions are mapped to the
search base. In some cases, the cn=inetResources container
entry in the authoritative partition will be used "as-is",
while in other cases, the cn=inetResources container entry
in a delegation parent of the authoritative partition will
be used instead. In some cases, the search base may change
during subsequent query-processing steps.
* Determine the assertion value for the query. The assertion
value will usually be the normalized form of the input
query. In some cases, the assertion value may change during
subsequent query-processing steps.
* Determine the matching filter. Each resource-type has its
own matching filter rules. For example, contact entries are
matched with a simple equalityMatch comparison, while in
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 17]
other cases the matching filter will be an extensibleMatch
which is peculiar to the resource-type in use.
Once all of the pre-processing steps have been successfully
completed, the client will have to locate an LDAPv3 server which
is authoritative for the search base before it can submit the
query. This process is described in section 6.2 below.
6.2. Bootstrap Processing
The bootstrap process uses DNS queries to locate the LDAP servers
which should be used for a query. However, since different kinds
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
perform this process.
FIRS supports three different bootstrap models, which are:
* Targeted. The "targeted" bootstrap model has the client
attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with a
specific domain name, such as a domain name which may be
returned as referrals or URLs. If no servers can be found
at that domain name, the client exits the query.
* Top-down. The "top-down" bootstrap model has the client
attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with a
top-level partition in the delegation path to the
authoritative partition, and then following any subsequent
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
attempting to locate the LDAP servers associated with the
authoritative partition itself. If no servers can be found
for that partition, the authoritative partition is reset to
the immediate parent in the delegation hierarchy and new
DNS queries are issued, with this process repeating until a
server is found or there are no more domains in the
delegation path which can be queried.
Each of the models are appropriate to different usages. For
example, The targeted model is most useful when a particular piece
of data is presumed to exist at a pre-determined location.
Meanwhile, the top-down model is best suited for searches about
global resources which are centrally managed and delegated (such
as IP addresses and DNS domains), and where centrally-managed
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 18]
delegation information is critical. Finally, the bottom-up model
is most appropriate for resources which are managed at a leaf-node
(such as contact information).
6.3. Query Processing
Once an LDAP server has been located, the LDAPv3 query is
submitted to that server.
Most of the values for the query will have been collected during
the pre-processing phase, although [FIRS-CORE] defines some rules
which govern all queries. For example, [FIRS-CORE] specifies a
maximum time limit of 60 seconds for queries (among other similar
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
that FIRS servers are allowed to limit the depth and breadth of
information that they provide to a specific client based on a
variety of factors, including the level of authenticated access.
Another consideration which can arise during this phase of the
process is protocol and schema versioning considerations. The
[LDAP] specifications already define mechanisms for protocol
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: March 2004 [page 19]
6.4. Query Post-Processing
Once a query has been submitted and processed, the server will
return answer data or some kind of referral, or possibly both. In
general, FIRS clients are expected to display all of the answer
data and process all of the referrals, although there are specific
considerations which must be taken into account. In particular,
there are considerations for handling the different kinds of
referrals, and there are localizations issues for specific kinds
of attribute data.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 18]
As was discussed in section 4.4, there are two kinds of referral
mechanisms which are used with FIRS, which are subordinate
reference referrals and continuation reference referrals. More
* Subordinate reference referrals. Subordinate reference
referrals are returned when the search base specified in a
query exists as a referral to some other entry. This
condition means that the current search operation cannot
proceed, and that the search MUST be restarted using the
search base specified in the referral message.
Any of the FIRS-specific entries MAY be defined as
subordinate reference referrals, although they are
typically only used when the inetResources container entry
in a partition is an alias for an inetResources container
entry in another partition. Subordinate reference referrals
and their schema are defined in [RFC3296] although there
are additional restrictions placed on their usage as
described in [FIRS-CORE].
* Continuation reference referrals. Continuation reference
referrals are returned when a search operation has been
successfully processed by the queried server, but the
answer data also includes referrals to other entries. This
condition means that the current search operation has
succeeded, but that additional searches SHOULD be started
in order for all of the answer data to be retrieved.
These referrals are often provided as supplemental data to
an answer set, although this is not required (a
continuation reference referral can be the only response,
but it won't be the only response in the common case).
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 20]
Continuation reference referrals and their schema are also
defined in [RFC3296], with additional restrictions placed
on their usage as described in [FIRS-CORE].
Whenever a referral is received in response to a query, the client
is required to display any answer data which has also been
received and then process the referral.
LDAP referrals can use any kind of URL, although FIRS specifically
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
assertion value elements, and then use these elements to construct
and issue new queries.
Note that [RFC2251] defines a superior reference referral which is
used as a "default referral" for out-of-scope searches. However,
FIRS specifically excludes support for superior reference
referrals. Any superior reference referrals which are encountered
as part of this service are to be treated as errors.
6.4.2. Internationalization and localization
The FIRS model uses the internationalization and localization
services which are inherent in LDAPv3. In many cases, this native
support is sufficient to accommodate internationalization and
localization considerations. However, there are several cases
where additional and explicit support is required.
For example, the domainComponent attribute is specifically
restricted to seven-bit character codes, and is traditionally
interpreted as simple [US-ASCII]. This is problematic with
internationalized domain names and the domainComponent attributes
derived from them, since these attribute sequences are used in
partition identifiers, search bases, and numerous other areas. In
order to ensure interoperability, all DNS domain names which are
mapped to domainComponent attributes MUST be reduced to their
ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined in
[RFC3490] before they are used for domainComponent sequences.
Similarly, although DNS is technically capable of storing eight-
bit code-point values, the operational rules which govern DNS do
not support this usage for domain names which are used as host
identifiers (and this includes zone delegations). As a result,
internationalized domain names which are to be used for DNS
lookups (such as queries for SRV resource records) MUST be reduced
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 21]
to their ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined
in [RFC3490] before these queries are issued.
In those cases where entries or attributes use normalized UTF-8
sequences inside of FIRS (specifically domain names and email
addresses), FIRS clients SHOULD offer ASCII-compatible versions of
those sequences, using the ToASCII process defined in [RFC3490].
This will ensure that clients are able to use these sequences with
legacy (pre-IDNA) applications directly. For example, if an entry
displays an inetAssociatedDomains attribute, the domain names in
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
allows it), but should also be made available in their ASCII-
compatible form (either as a clipboard option, command-line
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
understandable by the legacy application.
Attribute names are fixed, and can therefore be localized easily.
As such, clients MAY choose to convert attribute names into a
language appropriate to the local user for display purposes if
this is desirable. However, clients MUST NOT localize attribute
names which are used for query input. For example, clients MUST
NOT convert "cn=" or "dc=" relative distinguished labels into a
language-specific mapping and then use the mapped versions of
these labels for assertion values in a subsequent query.
RFC 2277 [RFC2277] requires free-text data to be tagged with
language tags. RFC 2596 [RFC2596] defines a mechanism for storing
language tags and language-specific attribute values in LDAPv3,
and these mechanisms SHOULD be supported by FIRS clients and
servers. For example, an organization name could be provided in
English and Arabic, with the language tags allowing the client to
display the appropriate attribute value instance based on the
locale settings of the user.
International postal regulations generally require that the
recipient address on an envelope be provided in a language and
charset which is native to the recipient's country, with the
exception of the destination country name which should be provided
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
route the mail to the recipient's country, while also ensuring
that the destination country's post office will be able to perform
local delivery. In order to facilitate this usage, the country
attribute value SHOULD be localized to the local user's
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 22]
nomenclature for that country, but other postal address data
SHOULD NOT be localized.
Notwithstanding the above, contact names SHOULD be provided in
English in order to facilitate inter-party communications, using
the mechanisms offered by [RFC2596]. For example, the default
contact entry for a person in Japan SHOULD be provided in the
native form for that person, but an English form SHOULD also be
provided in order to allow non-Japanese users to properly address
that person in subsequent communications. As stated in the
preceding paragraph however, any postal communications for that
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 21]
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,
making them predictable and easily convertible if necessary. As
such, dates MAY be localized for display purposes by client
applications as necessary.
Finally, clients must recognize that some URL data is likely to be
escaped, using at least one of the multiple rules which affect
URLs and resource-specific data. For example, a URL which contains
a domain name resource could theoretically have been escaped with
three or four a URL which contains
a domain name resource could theoretically have been escaped with
three or four different syntax rules, and clients MUST be prepared
to decode these URLs appropriately.
6.5. Query Restriction Mechanisms
[FIRS-CORE] defines several discrete rules that can be employed by
server operators to limit the queries received from any particular
client. Some of these restrictions include:
* Servers MAY refuse service to any client (5.3.3).
* Servers MAY impose arbitrary maximum limits on the number
of queries issued by any particular client for any given
time period, such as limiting clients to 50 queries-per-day
or five queries-per-hour (5.3.3).
* Servers MAY impose arbitrary wait intervals between
successive queries from any particular client, such as
requiring clients to wait five minutes between queries
* Servers MAY impose arbitrary limits on the maximum number
of answers that they will return to a client over any given
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 23]
time period (such as limiting clients to 100 answers-per-
day), and MAY base this restriction on any type of answer
* Servers MAY restrict the resource-types that any particular
client can query for, and MAY restrict the matching filters
that any particular client can use for any of the resource-
types that they are allowed to query (5.3.1).
* Servers MAY restrict the maximum length of time they spend
processing any particular query (5.3.2).
* Servers MAY restrict the maximum number of matches that
will be returned to any particular query (5.3.2).
* Server operators MAY define ACLs on entries and attributes
in the database that restrict the data that is matched for
any particular client (5.3.4).
Any of these restrictions MAY be defined by the operators of the
server in question, according to the policies deemed necessary by
the operators of that server. For example, operators MAY apply
different syntax rules, and clients MUST be prepared
to decode these URLs appropriately. restrictions on ranges of client addresses, or
authenticated identity, or any other necessary metric, or any
7. Transition Issues
There are a handful of areas where FIRS does not fully compare
with all of the existing WHOIS service offerings. These areas are
discussed in more detail below.
7.1. NIC Handles
Legacy NIC handles in existing databases can be accommodated using
two possible mechanisms:
* NIC handle output in legacy WHOIS systems may be replaced
with email addresses for the contacts, contact identifier addresses, using mail domain elements
which refer to the operator's domain. For example, the NIC
handle of EH26 on Network Solutions' WHOIS server could be
replaced with "firstname.lastname@example.org" or something similar.
This approach causes lookups for that email address to be
directed towards the operator's FIRS servers, and
facilitates fast coalescence around the FIRS system.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 24]
* Use the inetPrivateIdentifier inetLocalIdentifier attribute defined in [FIRS-
[FIRS-CORE]. This option provides a simple text string
which can be used for private identifiers, but provides no
integration with FIRS, other than allowing for attribute
Of the two mechanisms described above,
Although both options can be used simultaneously, the former
mechanism is especially preferred.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 22]
Several WHOIS services provide pseudo change-logs in their
response data, listing each unique modification event which has
occurred for a particular resource. For example, RIPE and some of
the ccTLDs provide WHOIS output which includes a series of
"changed" fields that itemize every modification event ("updated",
"added", etc.), the modifier, and the modification date, which
cumulatively act as a change-log for the resource in question.
Organizations are certainly free to maintain this information on
their internal systems. However, this information is not necessary
for public view of the data in the FIRS service. Furthermore,
where auditing of this information will be required, a format
which is suitable to legal review will also be required.
Organizations who wish to make change-log information available
should use an auxiliary LDAP schema for this purpose. An initial
schema is available at http://www.ehsco.com/misc/draft-hall-ldap-
audit-00.txt, although it has not been proposed as a standards-
track effort, and should only be used as a starting point for
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.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 25]
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
The FIRS collection of specifications describe an application of
the LDAPv3 protocol, and as such it inherits the security
considerations associated with LDAPv3, as described in section 7
By nature, LDAP is a read-write protocol. As such, there are
significant risks associated with unintentionally allowing
unauthorized third-parties to update the underlying data.
Moreover, allowing FIRS clients to update delegation data could
result in network resources being stolen from their lawful
operators. For example, if the LDAP front-end had update access to
a domain delegation database, a malicious third-party could
theoretically take ownership of a domain by exploiting an
authentication weakness, thereby causing ownership of the domain
to be changed to another party. For this reason, it is imperative
that the FIRS service not be allowed to make critical
modifications to delegated resources without ensuring that all
possible precautions have been taken, potentially including strong
authentication and encryption practices.
The query processing models described in these documents make use
of DNS lookups in order to locate the LDAP servers associated with
a particular resource. DNS is susceptible to certain attacks and
forgeries which may be used to redirect clients to LDAP servers
which are not authoritative for the resource in question.
This document provides multiple query models which will cause the
same query to be answered by different servers (one would be
processed by a delegation entity, while another would be processed
by an operational entity). As a result, each of the servers may
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 26]
provide different information, depending upon the query type that
was originally selected.
Some operators may choose to purposefully provide misleading or
erroneous information in an effort to avoid responsibility for bad
behavior. In addition, there are likely to be sporadic operator
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
provide cache timers or any other mechanisms which can indicate
how accurate or timely any replicas may be. As a result, it is
possible for a replica to become significantly outdated, even to
the point of containing wholesale errors.
For all of the reasons listed above, it is essential that
applications and end-users not make critical decisions based on
the information provided by the FIRS service without having reason
to believe the veracity of the information. Users should limit
unknown or untrusted information to routine purposes.
Despite these disclaimers, however, it is very likely that the
information presented through the FIRS service will be used for
many operational and problem-resolution purposes. In order to
ensure the veracity of the information, a minimal set of
operational guidelines are provided herein. For the most part,
these rules are designed to prevent unauthorized modifications to
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, it SHOULD be validated as accurate on entry, and it MUST
be secured against unauthorized modifications.
* The inetResources container entry and all of the resource-
specific subordinate entries within every public DIT that
provides FIRS resources SHOULD have anonymous read-only
access permissions, and MUST NOT have anonymous add, delete
or modify permissions.
* With the exception of contact-related attributes from the
inetOrgPerson object class, each attribute MAY have
whatever restrictions are necessary in order to suit local
security policies, government regulations or personal
privacy concerns. When the inetOrgPerson object class is
used to provide contact details, the mail attribute MUST be
defined, SHOULD be valid, SHOULD have anonymous read-only
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 27]
access, and MUST NOT have anonymous add, delete or modify
By using the inetOrgPerson object class, it is expected
that existing contact-related entries can be reused. If
reusing these entries is undesirable or unfeasible, entries
with the necessary access SHOULD be made available.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 25]
* End-users and implementers SHOULD provide anonymous access
to the creatorsName, createTimestamp, modifiersName and
modifyTimestamp operational attributes associated with each
entry in the inetResources branch, since this information
is useful for determining the age of the underlying data.
* Server operators MAY define additional add, delete or
modify permissions for authenticated users, using any
LDAPv3 authentication mechanisms they wish. In particular,
delegation entities MAY provide for the remote management
of delegated resources (such as assigning modification
privileges to the managers of a particular delegated domain
or address block), although this is entirely optional, and
is within the sole discretion of the delegation body.
* In the general case, server operators SHOULD NOT offer
clear-text authentication mechanisms over unencrypted
Finally, there are physical security issues associated with any
service which provides physical addressing and delivery
In summary, organizations MAY provide as much data as possible,
although no information is required.
9. IANA Considerations
The FIRS collection of specifications define an application of the
LDAPv3 protocol rather than a new Internet application protocol.
As such, there are no protocol-related IANA considerations.
However, the FIRS collection of specifications do define several
LDAP schema elements, including object classes, attributes,
syntaxes and extensibleMatch filters, and these elements should be
assigned OID values from the IANA branch. Furthermore, some of the
specifications define their own status codes as attribute values,
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 28]
and IANA is expected to maintain the code-point mapping values
associated with these attributes.
Finally, some of the specifications also describe public DNS and
LDAP servers and data. It is expected that IANA will see to the
establishment and maintenance of these servers and data.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 26]
10. Normative References
[CRISP-REQ] Newton, A. "Cross Registry Internet Service
Protocol (CRISP) Requirements", draft-ietf-
crisp-requirements-05, July 2003.
[FIRS-ARCH] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
Service: Architecture and Implementation
Guide", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-02, July
[FIRS-ASN] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Autonomous
System Numbers in the Federated Internet
Registry Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-
03, August 2003.
[FIRS-CONTCT] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Contact
Persons in the Federated Internet Registry
[FIRS-CORE] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
Service: Core Elements", draft-ietf-crisp-
firs-core-03, August 2003.
[FIRS-DNS] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Domains in
the Federated Internet Registry Service",
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-03, August 2003.
[FIRS-DNSRR] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Resource
Records in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-02, July
[FIRS-IPV4] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv4 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-02, July
[FIRS-IPV6] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv6 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-02, July
[ISO10646] "ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000. International Standard
-- Information technology -- Universal
Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) --
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 29]
Part 1: Architecture and Basic Multilingual
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 27]
[RFC2079] Smith, M. "Definition of an X.500 Attribute
Type and an Object Class to Hold Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 2079,
[RFC2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R.,
and Sataluri, S. "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500
DNs", RFC 2247, January 1998.
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S.
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)",
RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and Kille,
S. "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252,
[RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and Howes, T.
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
UTF-8 String Representation of DNs", RFC 2253,
[RFC2254] Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP
Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997.
[RFC2255] Howes, T., and Smith, M. "The LDAP URL
Format", RFC 2255, December 1997.
[RFC2256] Wahl, M. "A Summary of the X.500(96) User
Schema for use with LDAPv3", RFC 2256,
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H. "IETF Policy on Character Sets
and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F. "UTF-8, a transformation format of
ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
[RFC2596] Wahl, M., and Howes, T. "Use of Language Codes
in LDAP", RFC 2596, May 1999.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and Esibov, L. "A
DNS RR for specifying the location of services
(DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 30]
[RFC2798] Smith, M. "Definition of the inetOrgPerson
LDAP Object Class", RFC 2798, April 2000.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 28]
[RFC3296] Zeilenga, K. "Named Subordinate References in
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Directories", RFC 3296, July 2002.
[RFC3377] Hodges, J., and Morgan, R. "Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical
Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and Costello, A.
"Internationalizing Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[US-ASCII] Cerf, V. "ASCII format for Network
Interchange", RFC 20, October 1969.
11. Informational References
[RFC812] Harrenstien, K., and White, V.
"NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC 812, March 1982.
12. Changes from Previous Versions
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
* Added a discussion on the various query-restriction
mechanisms that are available in the system as a whole.
* Clarified the use of referrals and added a discussion on
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
* Restructured document set, separating the architectural
discussion from the technical descriptions.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 31]
* Consolidated the security discussions.
* As a result of the formation of the CRISP working group,
the original monolithic document has been broken into
multiple documents, with draft-ietf-crisp-lw-core
describing the core service, while related documents
describe the per-resource schema and access mechanisms.
* References to the ldaps: URL scheme have been removed,
since there is no standards-track specification for the
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 29]
* An acknowledgements section was added.
* The "Objectives" section has been removed. [ir-dir-req] is
now being used as the guiding document for this service.
* Several typographical errors have been fixed.
* Some unnecessary text has been removed.
* Figures changed to show complete sets of object classes, to
improve inheritance visibility.
* Clarified the handling of reverse-lookup domains (zones
within the in-addr.arpa portion of the DNS hierarchy) in
the inetDnsDomain object class reference text.
* Referrals now use regular LDAP URLs (multiple responses
with explicit hostnames and port numbers). Prior editions
of this specification used LDAP SRV resource records for
* The delegation status codes used by the
inetIpv6DelegationStatus and inetAsnDelegationStatus
attributes have been condensed to a more logical set.
* Added an inetDnsAuthServers attribute for publishing the
authoritative DNS servers associated with a domain. NOTE
THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY ATTRIBUTE THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 32]
REPLACED BY GENERALIZED RESOURCE-RECORD ENTRIES AND
* Added an inetGeneralDisclaimer attribute for publishing
* Added the inetAssociatedResources auxiliary object class
for defining associated resources, and moved some of the IP
addressing and ASN attributes to the new object class.
* Several attributes had their OIDs changed. NOTE THAT THIS
IS AN INTERNET DRAFT, AND THAT THE OIDS ARE SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS THIS DOCUMENT IS EDITED.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 30]
13. Author's Address
Eric A. Hall
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
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
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared,
copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without
restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice
and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative
works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any
way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed
for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 33]
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards
process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Hall I-D Expires: February March 2004 [page 31] 34]