draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-09.txt   rfc5144.txt 
Network Working Group A. Newton Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Request for Comments: 5144 American Registry for Internet Numbers
Intended status: Standards Track M. Sanz Category: Standards Track M. Sanz
Expires: May 17, 2008 DENIC eG DENIC eG
Nov 14, 2007 February 2008
A Domain Availability Check (DCHK) Registry Type for the Internet
Registry Information Service (IRIS)
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-09
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
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
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2008. A Domain Availability Check (DCHK) Registry Type for
the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)
Copyright Notice Status of This Memo
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a lightweight domain availability service This document describes a lightweight domain availability service
using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) framework and using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) framework and
the data model of the IRIS Domain Registry (DREG) service. the data model of the IRIS Domain Registry (DREG) service.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Domain Availability Check Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Domain Availability Check Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. The <domain> Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. The <domain> Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Support for <iris:lookupEntity> . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2. Support for <iris:lookupEntity> . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. BEEP Transport Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3. Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) Transport
3.3.1. Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.1. Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4. URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.1. Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4.1. Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.2. Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4.2. Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.3. Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4.3. Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. XML Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. XML Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3. S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. BEEP Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.4. BEEP Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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 RFC3982 [7]. 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 DREG, 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.
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
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 appears to be
seamlessly complementary. seamlessly complementary.
When coupled with [9], this domain availability service is When coupled with [9], this domain availability service is
lightweight and extremely efficient for high-volume, public-facing lightweight and extremely efficient 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
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 schema present in this document is tied to the protocol version The schema present in this document is tied to the protocol version
associated to the XML namespace URI defined in Section 5.2. associated with the XML namespace URI defined in Section 5.2.
Extensions to the present DCHK schema are allowed -though not Extensions to the present DCHK schema are allowed, though not
recommended- but would require a new version. Please refer to recommended, but would require a new version. Please refer to RFC
RFC3981 [6] for more details about versioning the IRIS protocol. 3981 [6] for more details about versioning the IRIS protocol.
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 [2] to describe the specification outside terms defined by RFC 2119 [2] 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.
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
<domain> Example <domain> Example
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 [1]. 1035 [1].
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 [3]. See RFC 3491 [3].
o <status> - this element contains child elements representing o <status> - this element may contain child elements representing
domain status information. It defines the following status types: domain status information. It defines the following status types:
* <active> - available via DNS (either via delegation or direct * <active> - available via DNS (either via delegation or direct
publication) publication).
* <inactive> - unavailable via DNS
* <dispute> - registrant assignment is in dispute * <inactive> - unavailable via DNS.
* <renew> - renewal of domain registration * <dispute> - registrant assignment is in dispute.
* <addPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after creation * <addPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after creation
or activation (see RFC 3915 [5]). or activation (see RFC 3915 [5]).
* <renewPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after renewal * <renewPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after renewal
(see RFC 3915 [5]). (see RFC 3915 [5]).
* <autoRenewPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after * <autoRenewPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after
automatic renewal (see RFC 3915 [5]). automatic renewal (see RFC 3915 [5]).
* <transferPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after * <transferPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after
transfer (see RFC 3915 [5]). transfer (see RFC 3915 [5]).
* <redemptionPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after * <redemptionPeriod> - the domain is in the grace period after
deletion (see RFC 3915 [5]). deletion (see RFC 3915 [5]).
* <restore> - change to previous status of this domain
* <policyCompliant> - the domain is considered compliant * <policyCompliant> - the domain is considered compliant
according to a given policy specified by the substatus according to a given policy specified by the substatus
identifier. identifier.
* <policyNoncompliant> - the domain is not considered compliant * <policyNoncompliant> - the domain is not considered compliant
according to a given policy specified by the substatus according to a given policy specified by the substatus
identifier. identifier.
* <reserved> - the domain is reserved and is not available for * <reserved> - the domain is reserved and is not available for
registration under normal registration procedures. registration under normal registration procedures.
* <create> - specifies the creation status of the domain in the * <create> - specifies the creation of the domain in the
registration system. registration system. This status is usually further refined by
the disposition attribute.
* <delete> - specifies the deletion status of the domain in the * <delete> - specifies the deletion of the domain in the
registration system. registration system. This status is usually further refined by
the disposition attribute.
* <transfer> - specifies the transfer status of the domain from * <renew> - specifies the renewal of domain registration. This
one responsible or owning entity in the registration system to status is usually further refined by the disposition attribute.
another.
* <update> - specifies the status of the domain as it relates to * <restore> - specifies the restoration to the previous state of
information in the domain being modified or having the ability the domain before it was deleted. This status is usually
to be modified. further refined by the disposition attribute.
* <transfer> - specifies the transfer of the domain from one
responsible or owning entity in the registration system to
another. This status is usually further refined by the
disposition attribute.
* <update> - specifies a general modification of the domain
information. This status is usually be further refined by the
disposition attribute.
* <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 RFC3982 [7]. 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.
o <expirationDateTime> - an element containing the date and time of o <expirationDateTime> - an element containing the date and time of
the expiration of this domain the expiration of this domain.
o <lastDatabaseUpdateDateTime> - an element containing the date and o <lastDatabaseUpdateDateTime> - an element containing the date and
time of the last actualization of the database that is source for time of the last actualization of the database that is the source
this result for this result.
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 of type 'domainStatusType' has the following Each element of type 'domainStatusType' has the following
composition: composition:
skipping to change at page 8, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 18
element. element.
o <subStatus> - a child element indicating further status o <subStatus> - a child element indicating further status
information. Values for this element are not defined by this information. Values for this element are not defined by this
specification. This child element has a required 'authority' specification. This child element has a required 'authority'
attribute to indicate the origin of the specification of the value attribute to indicate the origin of the specification of the value
of this element. of this element.
o 'actor' - an optional attribute indicating the acting entity for o 'actor' - an optional attribute indicating the acting entity for
which this status is applied. The values may be "registry", which this status is applied. The values may be "registry",
"registrar" or "registrationServiceProvider". "registrar", or "registrationServiceProvider".
o 'disposition' - an optional attribute indicating the nature of o 'disposition' - an optional attribute indicating the nature of
this status. The values may be "pending" or "prohibited". this status. The values may be "pending" or "prohibited".
o 'scope' - an optional attribute indicating the context or origin o 'scope' - an optional attribute indicating the context or origin
of the status value. of the status value.
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 is a
name as specified by RFC 1035 [1]. Yields a <domain> 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 This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation (see
[10] and [11]). The formal syntax presented here is a complete [10] and [11]). The formal syntax presented here is a complete
schema representation suitable for automated validation of an XML schema representation of an XML instance when combined with the
instance when combined with the formal schema syntax of IRIS. 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>
skipping to change at page 13, line 24 skipping to change at page 12, line 24
value="pending"/> value="pending"/>
</restriction> </restriction>
</simpleType> </simpleType>
</attribute> </attribute>
<attribute <attribute
name="scope" name="scope"
type="token" /> type="token" />
</complexType> </complexType>
</schema> </schema>
Figure 2: dchk.xsd Figure 1: dchk.xsd
3.3. BEEP Transport Compliance 3.3. Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) Transport Compliance
All DCHK client and servers MUST implement the Lightweight UDP All DCHK clients and servers MUST implement the Lightweight UDP
Transport Protocol (IRIS-LWZ) [9]. The use of other transports like Transport Protocol (IRIS-LWZ) [9]. The use of other transports like
the XML Pipelining with Chunks (IRIS-XPC) transport [12] or the BEEP the XML Pipelining with Chunks (IRIS-XPC) transport [12] or the BEEP
transport [8] is optional and completely at the discretion of the transport [8] is optional and completely at the discretion of the
server operator. The XPC transport is in any case preferable to the server operator. The XPC transport is in any case preferable to the
BEEP transport. BEEP transport.
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 [8].
3.3.1. Message Pattern 3.3.1. Message Pattern
skipping to change at page 15, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
process described by RFC3982 [7]. 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 RFC3982 [7]. described by RFC3982 [7].
4. Internationalization Considerations 4. Internationalization Considerations
Implementers should be aware of considerations for Implementors 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 [10] data type All date and time elements make use of the XML Schema [10] 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, IANA has made the following registration:
for the IANA:
o XML Namespace URN/URI: o XML Namespace 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>
* Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de> * Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de>
o XML: o XML:
* None. * None.
5.2. XML Schema Registration 5.2. XML Schema 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, IANA has made the following registration:
for the IANA:
o XML Schema URN/URI: o XML Schema URN/URI:
* urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1 * urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:dchk1
o Contact: o Contact:
* Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> * Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
* Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de> * Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de>
o XML: o XML:
* The XML Schema specified in Section 3.2 * The XML Schema specified in Section 3.2
5.3. S-NAPTR Registration 5.3. S-NAPTR Registration
The following S-NAPTR application service label will need to be The following Sraightforwarad-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) application service
registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in label has been registered with IANA according to the IANA
IRIS [6]: considerations defined in IRIS [6]:
DCHK1 DCHK1
5.4. BEEP Registration 5.4. BEEP Registration
The following BEEP Profile URI is to be registered with IANA, in The following BEEP Profile URI has been registered with IANA, in
addition to the registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [8]. 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 RFC3982 [7], the registry described in this Being a proper subset of RFC3982 [7], the registry described in this
document introduces no security considerations beyond those document introduces no security considerations beyond those
documented in RFC3981 [6]. documented in RFC3981 [6].
skipping to change at page 20, line 8 skipping to change at page 16, line 21
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[12] Newton, A., "XML Pipelining with Chunks for the Internet [12] Newton, A., "XML Pipelining with Chunks for the Internet
Registry Information Service", RFC 4992, August 2007. Registry Information Service", RFC 4992, August 2007.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Andrew L. Newton Andrew L. Newton
VeriSign, Inc. American Registry for Internet Numbers
21345 Ridgetop Circle 3635 Concorde Parkway, Suite 200
Sterling, VA 20166 Chantilly, VA 20151
USA USA
Phone: +1 703 948 3382 Phone: +1 703 227 9884
Email: andy@hxr.us EMail: andy@arin.net
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ URI: http://www.arin.net/
Marcos Sanz Marcos Sanz
DENIC eG DENIC eG
Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 Kaiserstrasse 75-77
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 IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
skipping to change at page 21, line 44 skipping to change at line 737
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
115 lines changed or deleted 96 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/