draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-06.txt   draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-07.txt 
Network Working Group A. Newton Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Sanz Intended status: Standards Track M. Sanz
Expires: June 8, 2007 DENIC eG Expires: December 6, 2007 DENIC eG
Dec 5, 2006 Jun 4, 2007
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-06 draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-07
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 June 8, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 6, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 21 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 21
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 DREG2 [10]. By doing framework and uses the data model defined by RFC3982 [7]. By doing
this, the domain availability service has the advantages provided by this, the domain availability service has the advantages provided by
IRIS and DREG2, such as well-known methods for server navigation, IRIS 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 seamless 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
DREG2. 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 DREG2. 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 DREG2 data model. This enables terms) is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This enables
implementors to directly reuse DREG2 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 DREG2 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 DREG2 service on a separate service on one set of machines and the DREG service on a separate set
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
seamlessly complementary. seamlessly complementary.
When coupled with [11], this domain availability service is When coupled with [11], 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 [2]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [2].
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 DREG2 data model. This section describes is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This section describes
the DCHK registry type. the DCHK registry type.
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 [6]. in IRIS [6].
The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements
skipping to change at page 7, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 14
* <update> - specifies the status of the domain as it relates to * <update> - specifies the status of the domain as it relates to
information in the domain being modified or having the ability information in the domain being modified or having the ability
to be modified. to be modified.
* <other> - specifies a registration system specific status of * <other> - specifies a registration system specific status of
the domain. the domain.
o <registrationReference> - an element containing an entity o <registrationReference> - an element containing an entity
reference, the referent of which MUST be either a <domain> reference, the referent of which MUST be either a <domain>
(Section 3.1.1) or a <domain> as defined by DREG2 [10]. The (Section 3.1.1) or a <domain> as defined by RFC3982 [7]. The
intent of this element is to point to the downstream registration intent of this element is to point to the downstream registration
reference. Therefore, if this is a result given back by a domain reference. Therefore, if this is a result given back by a domain
registry, it should point to the domain in the domain registrar or registry, it should point to the domain in the domain registrar or
registrant service. registrant service.
o <createdDateTime> - an element containing the date and time of the o <createdDateTime> - an element containing the date and time of the
creation of this domain creation of this domain
o <initialDelegationDateTime> - an element containing the date and o <initialDelegationDateTime> - an element containing the date and
time of the initial delegation of this domain. time of the initial delegation of this domain.
skipping to change at page 8, line 35 skipping to change at page 8, line 35
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 [1]. Yields a <domain> name as specified by RFC 1035 [1]. Yields a <domain>
(Section 3.1.1) in the response. (Section 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 [3]). Yields a <domain> (Section 3.1.1) in the response. RFC 3491 [3]). Yields a <domain> (Section 3.1.1) in the response.
3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax 3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax
This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation (see [8] This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation (see [9]
and [9]). The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema and [10]). The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema
representation suitable for automated validation of an XML instance representation suitable for automated validation of an XML instance
when combined 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" >
skipping to change at page 13, line 25 skipping to change at page 13, line 25
type="token" /> type="token" />
</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 [11], it is still possible to use DCHK lightweight transport such as [11], it is still possible to use DCHK
with the [7] transport. The use of this transport is completely at with the [8] transport. The use of this transport is completely at
the discretion of the server operator. the discretion 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 [7]. section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [8].
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 [7]. IRIS-BEEP [8].
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 [7]. described in IRIS-BEEP [8].
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. Its process is identical to the 'bottom' 'bottom' in IRIS URI's. Its process is identical to the 'bottom'
process described by DREG2 [10]. process described by RFC3982 [7].
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. Its process is identical to the 'top' process 'top' in IRIS URI's. Its process is identical to the 'top' process
described by DREG2 [10]. described by RFC3982 [7].
4. Internationalization Considerations 4. Internationalization Considerations
Implementers should be aware of considerations for Implementers should be aware of considerations for
internationalization in IRIS [6]. internationalization in IRIS [6].
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 internationalized data can many of the results. Results containing internationalized data can
be accompanied by these elements in order to aid better localization be accompanied by these elements in order to aid better localization
of the data by the user of the data by the user
All date and time elements make use of the XML Schema [8] data type All date and time elements make use of the XML Schema [9] data type
"dateTime". If their contents are Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) "dateTime". If their contents are Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
timestamps, they MUST be specified by using the capitalized 'Z' timestamps, they MUST be specified by using the capitalized 'Z'
indicator (instead of 'z'). indicator (instead of 'z').
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. XML Namespace Registration 5.1. XML Namespace Registration
This document makes use of the XML registry specified in RFC 3688 This document makes use of the XML registry specified in RFC 3688
[4]. Accordingly, the following registration information is provided [4]. Accordingly, the following registration information is provided
skipping to change at page 17, line 10 skipping to change at page 17, line 10
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 [6]: IRIS [6]:
DCHK1 DCHK1
5.4. BEEP Registration 5.4. 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 [7]. addition to the registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [8].
http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dchk1 http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dchk1
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Being a proper subset of DREG2 [10], the registry described in this Being a proper subset of RFC3982 [7], the registry described in this
document has the same security considerations. document has the same security considerations.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
skipping to change at page 19, line 30 skipping to change at page 19, line 30
January 2004. January 2004.
[5] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the [5] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915, Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,
September 2004. September 2004.
[6] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry [6] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry
Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981,
January 2005. January 2005.
[7] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry [7] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: A Domain Registry (dreg) Type
for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)",
RFC 3982, January 2005.
[8] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry
Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3983, January 2005. Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3983, January 2005.
[8] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", [9] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes",
W3C XML Schema, October 2004, W3C XML Schema, October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>.
[9] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", [10] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures",
W3C XML Schema, October 2004, W3C XML Schema, October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>.
[10] Newton, A. and F. Neves, "Domain Registry Version 2 for the
Internet Registry Information Service",
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg2-01 (work in progress), May 2006.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[11] Newton, A., "A Lightweight UDP Transport for IRIS", [11] Newton, A., "A Lightweight UDP Transport for IRIS",
draft-ietf-crips-iris-lwz-06 (work in progress), January 2005. draft-ietf-crips-iris-lwz-08 (work in progress), March 2007.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
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 21, line 7 skipping to change at page 21, line 7
DENIC eG DENIC eG
Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 Wiesenhuettenplatz 26
D-60329 Frankfurt D-60329 Frankfurt
Germany Germany
Email: sanz@denic.de Email: sanz@denic.de
URI: http://www.denic.de/ URI: http://www.denic.de/
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
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, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 40 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/