draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-01.txt   draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-02.txt 
Network Working Group A. Newton Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Expires: April 8, 2005 October 8, 2004 Expires: July 26, 2005 January 25, 2005
A Domain Availability Check (dchk) Registry Type for the Internet A Domain Availability Check (dchk) Registry Type for the Internet
Registry Information Service (IRIS) Registry Information Service (IRIS)
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-01 draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2005. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a lightweight domain availability service This document describes a lightweight domain availability service
using the IRIS framework and the data model of the IRIS Domain using the IRIS framework and the data model of the IRIS Domain
Registry service. Registry service.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
3.1 Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1 The <domain> Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1 The <domain> Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2 Support for <iris:lookupEntity> . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.2 Support for <iris:lookupEntity> . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 DCHK Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 DCHK Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 BEEP Transport Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3 BEEP Transport Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1 Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.1 Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2 Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.2 Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.1 Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.1 Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.2 Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.2 Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.3 Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4.3 Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1 XML Namespace URN Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1 XML Namespace URN Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2 S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2 S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3 BEEP Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3 BEEP Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes a lightweight service for checking the This document describes a lightweight service for checking the
availability of domain names. This service is based on the IRIS availability of domain names. This service is based on the IRIS
framework and uses the data model defined by DREG. By doing this, framework and uses the data model defined by DREG. By doing this,
the domain availability service has the advantages provided by IRIS the domain availability service has the advantages provided by IRIS
and DREG, such as well-known methods for server navigation, and DREG, such as well-known methods for server navigation,
structured queries and results, and layered extensibility. structured queries and results, and layered extensibility.
The use of IRIS for this service also allows seemless integration The use of IRIS for this service also allows seamless integration
between the domain availability service and the service provided by between the domain availability service and the service provided by
DREG. This allows a user to find the availability status of domain DREG. This allows a user to find the availability status of domain
and reference the full registration information in DREG. and reference the full registration information in DREG.
The data model in this service (called a registry schema in IRIS The data model in this service (called a registry schema in IRIS
terms) is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This enables terms) is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This enables
implementors to directly reuse DREG code paths and allows operators implementors to directly reuse DREG code paths and allows operators
to deploy the service in either the same server processes as a DREG to deploy the service in either the same server processes as a DREG
service (same host and port) or in a different server process service (same host and port) or in a different server process
(different port) or machine (different host). (different port) or machine (different host).
As an example, an operator may wish to deploy both types of service As an example, an operator may wish to deploy both types of service
on the same set of machines. As time goes on, the operator may then on the same set of machines. As time goes on, the operator may then
decide to segregate the services, placing the domain availability decide to segregate the services, placing the domain availability
service on one set of machines and the DREG service on a separate set service on one set of machines and the DREG service on a separate set
of machines with a stricter set of controls. Either deployment of machines with a stricter set of controls. Either deployment
scenario is transparent to the end user and always appear to be scenario is transparent to the end user and always appear to be
seemlessly complementary. seamlessly complementary.
When coupled with [20], this domain availability service is When coupled with [10], this domain availability service is
lightweight and extremely effecient for high-volume, public-facing lightweight and extremely effecient for high-volume, public-facing
service. service.
2. Document Terminology 2. Document Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [12]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [7].
3. DCHK Registry 3. DCHK Registry
The data model used for the domain availability check (DCHK) service The data model used for the domain availability check (DCHK) service
is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This section describes is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This section describes
the DCHK registry type. See [5]. the DCHK registry type. See [3].
3.1 Schema Description 3.1 Schema Description
References to XML elements with no namespace qualifier are from the References to XML elements with no namespace qualifier are from the
schema defined in Section 3.2. References to elements and attributes schema defined in Section 3.2. References to elements and attributes
with the "iris" XML namespace qualifier are from the schema defined with the "iris" XML namespace qualifier are from the schema defined
in IRIS [5]. in IRIS [3].
The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements
and attributes and their relation to the exchange of data within the and attributes and their relation to the exchange of data within the
protocol. These descriptions also contain specifications outside the protocol. These descriptions also contain specifications outside the
scope of the formal XML syntax. Therefore, this section will use scope of the formal XML syntax. Therefore, this section will use
terms defined by RFC 2119 [12] to describe the specification outside terms defined by RFC 2119 [7] to describe the specification outside
the scope of the formal XML syntax. While reading this section, the scope of the formal XML syntax. While reading this section,
please reference Section 3.2 for needed details on the formal XML please reference Section 3.2 for needed details on the formal XML
syntax. syntax.
3.1.1 The <domain> Result 3.1.1 The <domain> Result
An example of a <domain> result: An example of a <domain> result:
<domain <domain
authority="iana.org" registryType="dchk1" authority="iana.org" registryType="dchk1"
entityClass="domain-name" entityName="example.com"> entityClass="domain-name" entityName="example.com">
<domainName>example.com</domainName> <domainName>example.com</domainName>
<status><activeAndAssigned/></status> <status><activeAndAssigned/></status>
</domain> </domain>
The <domain> result represents an instance of a domain assignment. The <domain> result represents an instance of a domain assignment.
The children of the <domain> element are as follows: The children of the <domain> element are as follows:
o <domainName> - the full name of the domain as it is in DNS. The o <domainName> - the full name of the domain as it is in DNS. The
contents of this element MUST be a domain name as specified by RFC contents of this element MUST be a domain name as specified by RFC
1035 [11]. 1035 [6].
o <idn> - the name of the domain in nameprep form if applicable. o <idn> - the name of the domain in nameprep form if applicable.
See RFC 3491 [17]. See RFC 3491 [8].
o <status> - may contain at least one of the following elements of o <status> - may contain at least one of the following elements of
type 'domainStatusType' (see Section 3.1.1.1), but none of these type 'domainStatusType' (see Section 3.1.1.1), but none of these
elements may appear more than once. elements may appear more than once.
* <reservedDelegation> - permanently inactive * <reservedDelegation> - permanently inactive
* <assignedAndActive> - normal state * <assignedAndActive> - normal state
* <assignedAndInactive> - registration assigned but delegation * <assignedAndInactive> - registration assigned but delegation
inactive inactive
* <assignedAndOnHold> - dispute * <assignedAndOnHold> - dispute
* <revoked> - database purge pending * <revoked> - database purge pending
* <transferPending> - change of authority pending * <transferPending> - change of authority pending
* <registryLock> - on hold by registry * <registryLock> - on hold by registry
* <registrarLock> - on hold by registrar * <registrarLock> - on hold by registrar
o <domainVariant> - contains an entity reference, the referent of o <domainVariant> - contains an entity reference, the referent of
which MUST be a <domain> (Section 3.1.1). which MUST be a <domain> (Section 3.1.1).
o <registrationReference> - an element containing an entity o <registrationReference> - an element containing an entity
reference, the referent of which MUST be a <domain> (Section reference, the referent of which MUST be a <domain> (Section
3.1.1). The intention of this element is to point to the 3.1.1). The intent of this reference is to point to the instance
downstream registration reference. Therefore, if this is a result of this domain in the registry's DREG [4] registry.
given back by a domain registry, it should point to the domain in
the domain registrar or registrant service.
o <iris:seeAlso> - an element containing an entity reference o <iris:seeAlso> - an element containing an entity reference
specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this
domain. domain.
3.1.1.1 Domain Status Type 3.1.1.1 Domain Status Type
Each element that is of the 'domainStatusType' may have an optional Each element that is of the 'domainStatusType' may have an optional
<appliedDate> element and one or more <description> elements, the <appliedDate> element and one or more <description> elements, the
text contents of which may be used to describe the status in natural text contents of which may be used to describe the status in natural
language. Each <description> element must have a 'language' language. Each <description> element must have a 'language'
attribute describing the language of the description element. attribute describing the language of the description element.
3.1.2 Support for <iris:lookupEntity> 3.1.2 Support for <iris:lookupEntity>
The following types of entity classes are recognized by the The following types of entity classes are recognized by the
<lookupEntity> query of IRIS for this registry: <lookupEntity> query of IRIS for this registry:
o domain-name - the fully qualified name of a domain. This a domain o domain-name - the fully qualified name of a domain. This a domain
name as specified by RFC 1035 [11]. Yields a <domain> (Section name as specified by RFC 1035 [6]. Yields a <domain> (Section
3.1.1) in the response. 3.1.1) in the response.
o idn - the fully qualified name of a domain in nameprep form (see o idn - the fully qualified name of a domain in nameprep form (see
RFC 3491 [17]). Yields a <domain> (Section 3.1.1) in the RFC 3491 [8]). Yields a <domain> (Section 3.1.1) in the response.
response.
3.2 DCHK Formal XML Syntax 3.2 DCHK Formal XML Syntax
This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation. The This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation (see [1]
formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation and [2]). The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema
suitable for automated validation of an XML instance when combined representation suitable for automated validation of an XML instance
with the formal schema syntax of IRIS. when combined with the formal schema syntax of IRIS.
<?xml version="1.0"?> <?xml version="1.0"?>
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:dchk="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1" xmlns:dchk="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1"
xmlns:iris="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1" xmlns:iris="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1" targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1"
elementFormDefault="qualified" > elementFormDefault="qualified" >
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1" /> <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1" />
<annotation> <annotation>
<documentation> <documentation>
Domain availability check schema Domain availability check schema
derived from IRIS schema derived from IRIS schema
</documentation> </documentation>
</annotation> </annotation>
<!-- ========================================= --> <!-- ========================================= -->
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 48
use="required" /> use="required" />
</extension> </extension>
</simpleContent> </simpleContent>
</complexType> </complexType>
</element> </element>
</sequence> </sequence>
<attribute <attribute
name="scope" name="scope"
type="string" /> type="string" />
</complexType> </complexType>
</schema> </schema>
Figure 2: dchk.xsd Figure 2: dchk.xsd
3.3 BEEP Transport Compliance 3.3 BEEP Transport Compliance
Though it is envisioned that a DCHK service will be deployed with a Though it is envisioned that a DCHK service will be deployed with a
lightweight transport such as [20], it is still possible to use DCHK lightweight transport such as [10], it is still possible to use DCHK
with the [8] transport. The use of this transport is completely at with the [5] transport. The use of this transport is completely at
the descretion of the server operator. the descretion of the server operator.
IRIS allows several extensions of the core capabilities. This IRIS allows several extensions of the core capabilities. This
section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [8]. section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [5].
3.3.1 Message Pattern 3.3.1 Message Pattern
This registry type uses the default message pattern as described in This registry type uses the default message pattern as described in
IRIS-BEEP [8]. IRIS-BEEP [5].
3.3.2 Server Authentication 3.3.2 Server Authentication
This registry type uses the default server authentication method as This registry type uses the default server authentication method as
described in IRIS-BEEP [8]. described in IRIS-BEEP [5].
3.4 URI Resolution 3.4 URI Resolution
3.4.1 Application Service Label 3.4.1 Application Service Label
The application service label associated with this registry type MUST The application service label associated with this registry type MUST
be "DCHK1". This is the abbreviated form of the URN for this be "DCHK1". This is the abbreviated form of the URN for this
registry type, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1. registry type, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1.
3.4.2 Bottom-Up Resolution 3.4.2 Bottom-Up Resolution
The bottom-up alternative resolution method MUST be identified as The bottom-up alternative resolution method MUST be identified as
'bottom' in IRIS URI's. 'bottom' in IRIS URI's. Its process is identical to the 'bottom'
process described by DREG [4].
The process for this resolution method differs from the
direct-resolution method if the authority is only a domain name (i.e.
without the port number). The process for this condition is as
follows:
1. The IRIS [5] direct resolution process is tried on the domain
name (e.g. "example.com" ).
2. If the direct resolution process yields no server for which a
connection can be made, then the leftmost label of the domain
name is removed, and the first step is repeated again (e.g.
"com" ).
3. If all the labels of the domain name are removed and no server
connections have been made, then the DNS is queried for the
address records corresponding to the original domain name and the
port used is the well-known port for the default protocol of
IRIS.
3.4.3 Top-Down Resolution 3.4.3 Top-Down Resolution
The top-down alternative resolution method MUST be identified as The top-down alternative resolution method MUST be identified as
'top' in IRIS URI's. 'top' in IRIS URI's. Its process is identical to the 'top' process
described by DREG [4].
The process for this resolution method differs from the
direct-resolution method if the authority is only a domain name (i.e.
without the port number). The process for this condition is as
follows:
1. The domain name is reduced to its rightmost label. This is
always '.'.
2. The IRIS [5] direct resolution process is tried on the domain
name.
3. If the direct resolution process yields no server for which a
connection can be made, then the original label to the left of
the rightmost label of the domain name is prepended, and the
second step is repeated again (e.g. if "." then "com", if "com"
then "example.com").
4. If all the labels of the original domain are present and no
server connections have been made, then the DNS is queried for
the address records corresponding to the original domain name and
the port used is the well-known port for the default protocol of
IRIS.
4. Internationalization Considerations 4. Internationalization Considerations
Implementers should be aware of considerations for Implementers should be aware of considerations for
internationalization in IRIS [5]. internationalization in IRIS [3].
This document specifies the lookup of domain names, both the
traditional ASCII form and the IDN form. In addition, the social
data associated with contacts may also be non-ASCII, and could
contain virtually any Unicode character. The <language> element is
provided in queries that have potential to traverse such data.
Clients should use these elements to indicate to the server of the
target languages desired, and servers should use these elements to
better enable normalization and search processes (see [21]).
Clients needing to localize the data tags in this protocol should Clients needing to localize the data tags in this protocol should
take note that localization is only needed on the names of XML take note that localization is only needed on the names of XML
elements and attributes with the exception of elements containing elements and attributes with the exception of elements containing
date and time information. The schema for this registry has been date and time information. The schema for this registry has been
designed so that clients need not interpret the content of elements designed so that clients need not interpret the content of elements
or attributes for localization, other than those elements containing or attributes for localization, other than those elements containing
date and time information. date and time information.
Clients should also make use of the <language> elements provided in Clients should also make use of the <language> elements provided in
many of the results. Results containing data that may be in Unicode many of the results. Results containing data that may be in Unicode
are accompanied by these elements in order to aid better presentation are accompanied by these elements in order to aid better presentation
of the data to the user. of the data to the user.
The "dateTimePrivacyType" element type contains the XML Schema [3] The "appliedDate" element contains the XML Schema [1] data type
data type "dateTime". The contents of this element MUST be specified "dateTime". The contents of this element MUST be specified using the
using the 'Z' indicator for Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). 'Z' indicator for Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1 XML Namespace URN Registration 5.1 XML Namespace URN Registration
This document makes use of a proposed XML namespace and schema This document makes use of a proposed XML namespace and schema
registry specified in XML_URN [18]. Accordingly, the following registry specified in XML_URN [9]. Accordingly, the following
registration information is provided for the IANA: registration information is provided for the IANA:
o URN/URI: o URN/URI:
* urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1 * urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1
o Contact: o Contact:
* Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> * Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
o XML: o XML:
* The XML Schema specified in Section 3.2 * The XML Schema specified in Section 3.2
5.2 S-NAPTR Registration 5.2 S-NAPTR Registration
The following S-NAPTR application service label will need to be The following S-NAPTR application service label will need to be
registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in
IRIS [5]: IRIS [3]:
DCHK1 DCHK1
5.3 BEEP Registration 5.3 BEEP Registration
The following BEEP Profile URI is to be registeried with IANA, in The following BEEP Profile URI is to be registeried with IANA, in
addition to the registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [8]. addition to the registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [5].
http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dchk1 http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dchk1
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
IRIS-LWZ is intended for serving public data; it provides no in-band Being a proper subset of DREG [4], the registry described in this
mechanisms for authentication or encryption. Any application that document has the same security considerations.
needs that must provide out of band mechanisms to provide it (e.g.,
IPSec), or use the IRIS protocol with an application transport that
provides such capabilities (e.g. BEEP [7].
7. References 7. References
7.1 Normative References 7.1 Normative References
[1] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) [1] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
1.0", W3C XML, February 1998,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210>.
[2] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML
Namespaces, January 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114>.
[3] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
XML Schema, October 2000, XML Schema, October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/>.
[4] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", [2] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C
W3C XML Schema, October 2000, XML Schema, October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/>.
[5] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Internet Registry Information [3] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Internet Registry Information Service",
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-05 (work in progress), RFC 3891, January 2005.
January 2004.
[6] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
1998.
[7] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001.
[8] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Internet Registry Information Service
(IRIS) over Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-05 (work in progress), January 2004.
[9] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) [4] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "A Domain Registry (dreg) Type for the
Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)", RFC 3892, January
2005.
[10] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September [5] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Internet Registry Information Service
1981. (IRIS) over Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", RFC
3893, January 2005.
[11] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [6] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[12] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [7] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[13] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the
representation of names of countries, 3rd edition", ISO
Standard 3166, August 1988.
[14] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and
Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[15] International Telecommunications Union, "The International
Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-T Recommendation
E.164, 1991.
[16] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P. and A. Costello, "Internationalizing
Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[17] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile [8] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for
for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March 2003.
2003.
[18] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", [9] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry",
draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-03 (work in progress), draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-03 (work in progress),
November 2001. November 2001.
7.2 Informative References 7.2 Informative References
[19] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) [10] Newton, A., "A Lightweight UDP Transport for IRIS",
Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004. draft-ietf-crips-iris-lwz-01 (work in progress), January 2005.
[20] Newton, A., "A Lightweight UDP Transport for IRIS",
draft-ietf-crips-iris-lwz-00 (work in progress), Ocotober 2004.
URIs
[21] <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>
Author's Address Author's Address
Andrew L. Newton Andrew L. Newton
VeriSign, Inc. VeriSign, Inc.
21345 Ridgetop Circle 21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166 Sterling, VA 20166
USA USA
Phone: +1 703 948 3382 Phone: +1 703 948 3382
skipping to change at page 18, line 41 skipping to change at page 16, line 41
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 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.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

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