Network Working Group A. Newton Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Obsoletes: 3982 (if approved) F. Neves Expires: November 26, 2006 Registro.br May 25, 2006 Domain Registry Version 2 for the Internet Registry Information Service draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg2-01 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 November 26, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This document describes version 2 of the domain registration information schema for IRIS. The schema extends the necessary query and result operations of IRIS to provide the functional information service needs for syntaxes and results used by domain registries and registrars. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Changes From RFC 3982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Registration Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Enhanced Status Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Lame Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Query Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1.1. Match Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1.2. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1.3. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1.4. Query . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1.5. Query . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1.6. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1.7. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1.8. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1.9. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1.10. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.11. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.12. Correspondence Search Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2. Result Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.1. Privacy Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2.2. Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2.3. Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.2.4. Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.2.5. Organization Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.2.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.7. Correspondence Data Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.2.8. Representative Entity Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.2.9. Common Date Time Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.2.10. Common Enhanced Status Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.3. Generic Code Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.4. Support for . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.5. Lameness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5. Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6. BEEP Transport Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.1. Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.2. Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 7. URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7.1. Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7.2. Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 7.3. Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 8. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 9.1. XML Namespace URN Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 9.2. S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 9.3. BEEP Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Appendix A. Example Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . 82 A.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 A.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 A.3. Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Appendix B. An Example Database Serialization . . . . . . . . . . 89 Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 93 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 1. Introduction This document describes version 2 of an XML [1] based registry using the IRIS framework. This schema is specified using the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in XML [1], XML Schema notation as described in XML_SD [3] and XML_SS [4], and XML Namespaces as described in XML_NS [2]. Examples of client/server XML exchanges with this registry type are available in Appendix A. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 2. Document Terminology 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 RFC2119 [10]. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 3. Changes From RFC 3982 The following described the major differences between this specification and [17]. 3.1. Registration Rules Registration rules allow a domain registry to expose the rules upon which the domain registry operates. The rules do not contain any process logic or policy logic themselves. They simply specifiy rule identifiers and the authority issuing the rule identifiers. Registration rules are retrieved using the query (see Section 4.1.11). The rules are represented by the result objects (see Section 4.2.6). 3.2. Enhanced Status Types Enhanced status types are defined to more closely align with the status values of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) (See [22], [23], [24], and [19]). These status types have also been added to more than just the result object. The older status types and values are still specified, as some domain registries expose both types and some domain registries do not have EPP compatible status indicators. The two types of status are clearly distinguishable. 3.3. Lame Checking Some domain registries periodically conduct lameness checks on domains and linked name servers. This specification enumerates the various reasons why a domain or name server may be considered lame and specifies status values. See Section 4.5. 3.4. Organizations This specification adds the result object (see Section 4.2.5.1). Organizations may have references to other organizations and contacts (see Section 4.2.4). And result objects that could only point to result objects in [17] now can refer to either an organization or a contact. To clarify the terminology, entity references such as these are now called "representatives" instead of "contacts". For instance, a domain now has a "legal representative" instead of a "legal contact". Several new searches have been added to accomodate organizations into the data model. These are , Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 , and . The following example response illustrates a domain with a person as a registrant and an organization as a legal representative. example.com Bob Smurd Dewey Cheatum and Howe beb140 Bill Eckels Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 en Bill sells shoes down by the sea shore. Rechnung verkauft Schuhe unten durch das Seeufer.
21 North Main Street
Britt IA 50423 US +1-515-555-1212 Dewey Cheatum and Howe Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Dewey Cheatum and Howe NAICS-040302 EIN-3930023-293920
1804 K Street.
Washington DC 22002 US +1-202-555-1212 dch-01 The following example response illustrates a domain with an organization as a registrant and an organization as a legal representative. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 example.com Big Company, Inc. Dewey Cheatum and Howe Big Company, Inc. EIN-4009320-29302
1501 Hollywood Blvd.
Los Angeles CA Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 90150 US Dewey Cheatum and Howe bigco-01 Dewey Cheatum and Howe NAICS-040302 EIN-3930023-293920
1804 K Street.
Washington DC 22002 US Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 202-555-1212 dch-01 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 12] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 4. Schema Description IRIS requires the derivation of both query and result elements by a registry schemas. These descriptions follow. References to XML elements with no namespace qualifier are from the schema defined in Section 5. References to elements and attributes with the "iris" XML namespace qualifier (XML namespace prefix) are from the schema defined in IRIS [5]. The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements and attributes and their relation to the exchange of data within the protocol. These descriptions also contain specifications outside the scope of the formal XML syntax. Therefore, this section will use terms defined by RFC 2119 [10] to describe the specification outside the scope of the formal XML syntax. While reading this section, please reference Section 5 for needed details on the formal XML syntax. Many of the queries and results are unchanged from [17]. This document will focus on the additions and changes, and note the portions unchanged from [17]. 4.1. Query Derivatives IRIS [5] draws a distinction between simple lookups and more complex searches and queries. Simple lookups take the same form and are required by all registry types, so the mechanism is defined in IRIS [5]. Section 4.4 specifies the entity classes allowable in simple lookups. IRIS [5] leaves the more complex and specific searches and queries to be defined by each registry type. This section defines those more complex queries for the domain registry type. 4.1.1. Match Parameters The queries , , , , , and have parameters for matching parts of character strings with whole characters strings found in the registration system. This specification enhances this capability from [17]. Partial match parameters are defined in Section 5 in the PartialMatchGroup. This grouping is composed of , and . The element specifies matching characters at the beginning of the string data. The element specifies matching characters at the end of the string data. And element specifies matching characters Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 13] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 that may be preceded or suceded by other characters in the string data. Some parameters allow for specifying exact matches. This is accomplished using the element. 4.1.2. Query An example of a query: com Shoe Masters Domains searches for a registration authority designated as a registrar for the registry of the server. If present, the element MUST restrict the results of the search to only registrars capable of registering subdomains in the domain signified by the content of this element. The element restricts the scope of the query with its child elements using exact or partial matching (see Section 4.1.1). If the element is not present, the query MUST return all registrars applicable (i.e. in consideration of ). This query MUST return a result set of zero or more elements. See Section 4.2.5.2. 4.1.3. Query An example of a query: com The Cobbler Shoppe registrant Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 14] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 finds domains by searches on fields associated with contacts. A search constraint of MUST restrict the results to domains only underneath the domain specified by its content if it is present. The allowable search fields are handled with either the element, the element, or one of the elements in the "correspondenceSearchGroup" (see Section 4.1.12). The element allows for the domains to be selected based on the contact having the specified contact handle by exact match. The element allows for the domains to be selected based on the common name of the contact, either by exact or partial matching. See Section 4.1.1. The query MAY also be constrained further using the optional element. The contents of this element signify the role the contact has with the domain. This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. While this query has structurally changed in its formal XML specification, its function is unchanged from [17]. 4.1.4. Query An example of a query: com.br 005.506.560/0001-36 finds domains by searches on fields associated with organizations. A search constraint of MUST restrict the results to domains only underneath the domain specified by its content if it is present. The allowable search fields are handled with either the element, the element, Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 15] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 element, the element, or one of the elements in the "correspondenceSearchGroup" (see Section 4.1.12). The and elements allow for the domains to be selected based on the organization having the exact specified value (i.e. exact match). The and elements allow selection based on partial or exact match of an organizations name or trading name. See Section 4.1.1. The query MAY also be constrained further using the optional element. The contents of this element signify the role the contact has with the domain. This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. does not exist in [17]. 4.1.5. Query An example of a query: Cobbler registrant This query is similar to (Section 4.1.3) query, returning (Section 4.2.5.1) objects instead of objects. This query does not have a parameter. does not exist in [17]. 4.1.6. Query An example of a query: Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 16] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 thecobblershop The query finds domains by the name of a domain as it is known in DNS. The element restricts the scope of the query with its child elements. The element specifies the beginning of the domain name. The element specifies matching characters that may be preceded or suceded by others characters in the domain name. The element specifies the end of the domain name. 4.1.7. Query An example of a query: Der Schustershoppe de This query differs from the query by allowing the scope of the query to take into consideration internationalized domain names. This query will return the union of the desired domain and any associated variants, therefore differing from a lookup in the "idn" entity class (Section 4.4) (which is to only return the domain or no results). The element restricts the scope of the query with its child element. Its child, the element, is designed to contain IDNs and not ACE labels, and thus MUST match only against equivalent IDNs, according to the notion of equivalence defined in RFC 3490 [14]. This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 17] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 It should be noted that this query is not intended to produce all possible variants of a domain name but rather produce only the variants of a domain that exist within the registration system. Returning domain variants that do not exist within a registration system is NOT RECOMMENDED. This is a clarification of this query as found in [17]. 4.1.8. Query An example of a query: Der Schustershoppe de searches for contacts given search constraints. The allowable search fields are handled by one of the elements in the "correspondenceSearchGroup" (see Section 4.1.12). or the element. The element selects contacts based on exact or partial common name of the contact. This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. 4.1.9. Query An example of a query: Der Schustershoppe de searches for contacts given search constraints. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 18] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 The allowable search fields are handled by one of the elements in the "correspondenceSearchGroup" (see Section 4.1.12). or the , , or elements. The , , and elements select organizations based on exact or partial. See Section 4.1.1. This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. 4.1.10. Query An example of a query: ns1.example.com This query does a simple search for the domains being hosted by a name server. The search is constrained using either the host name [12], host handle, IPv4 address, or IPv6 address of the name server. 4.1.11. Query An example of a query: br idn This query lists the registration rules, described by (Section 4.2.6) objects. This query may be restricted to rules applying to a specific domain using the element. This query can also be restricted to only rules covering certain subjects using the element. The valid subject values for this element are 'domain', 'idn', 'host', 'organization' and 'contact'. This query does not exit in [17]. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 19] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 4.1.12. Correspondence Search Group Some of the queries above have similar query constraints for searching on fields related to information used for correspondence with contacts and organizations. This section describes those common parameters. With the exception of , all use the matching parameters outline in Section 4.1.1. o constrains the query based on the e-mail address of the contact or organization. This may be done by an exact e-mail address using the element or by any e-mail address in a domain using the element. The MUST only contain a valid domain name (i.e. no '@' symbol), and the matching SHOULD take place only on the domain given (i.e. no partial matches with respect to substrings or parent domains). If either the contents of the element or domain part of the contents of the element contain a name with non-ASCII characters, they MUST be normalized according to the processes of RFC 3491 [15]. o The , , and elements restrict the scope of the query based on the city, region, or postal code of the contact, respectively. Each one must only contain an element containing the exact city, region, or postal code (i.e. no substring searches). 4.2. Result Derivatives With the exception of , the results of this registry type have relationships with each other, specified with various entity references to signify their roles. The following entity-relationship diagram provides a high-level view of these linkages. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 20] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 +->>-----------------------------------------+ | | registrant | billing, legal, zone, abuse * | security, technical, admin, +----------------+ +-----------+ and other representative | | | |->>--------------------+->>---+->>---*| | | | | | | | | |->>----------------------+ | | | | |->>----+ | | +----<<-| | | |-->>-+ | | | +<<-| | | |->>+ | | | | | +----------------+ | |-+ | | | registrant | +--------+ +-----------+ | | | +-----------------------+ V * | | | | | V | variant | | | | V | billing, legal, zone +------<<--+ | | | V | abuse, security, | | | | | technical, admin, name server | | | +-----|--+ and other | | | | | V representative +-----------+ | | registry, | | | V | |*--+ | registrar, and | ^ | | | | | registration | ^ * * | | | service ^ | +-----------+ +-----------+ | provider ^ | | | * | | | | +-------------------------+ | | | | +-----------+ | | | | +-------------------------+ 4.2.1. Privacy Labels Several of the results in this registry type have values that cannot be given but must be specified as present or must be flagged so that clients do not divulge them. In order to achieve this, some of the results use the following element types: o "dateTimePrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data type "dateTime". The contents of this element MUST be specified using the 'Z' indicator for Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). o "stringPrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data type "string". o "normalizedStringPrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data type "normalizedString". Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 21] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 o "tokenPrivacyType" - contains the XML Schema [3] data type "token". o "domainStatusType" - contains an optional element of indicating the date and time the status was applied and an optional element of with required attribute 'language' indicating a description of the status. This element also has an optional attribute of 'scope' to indicate the scope or origin of the status value. o "enhanceStatusType" - describes status that may be applied to , , and results as well as results. In addition to the element, element, and the 'language' and 'scope' attribute, has the following components: * - a child element containing a service ticket identifier relevant to the status. * - a child element indicating further status information. Values for this element are not defined by the specification. This child element has a required 'authority' attribute to indicate the origin of the specification of the value of this element. * 'actor' - an optional attribute indicating the acting entity for which this status is applied. The values may be "registry", "registrar", or "registrationServiceProvider". * 'disposition' - an optional attribute indicating the nature of this status. The values may be "pending" or "prohibited". does not appear in [17]. o "contactTypeType" - contains an optional child elements. Each child element requires a 'language' attribute. As specified, they are nillable and therefore may be present with empty content or present with their specified content. The use of these elements is also optional. If present without content, each of these element types MUST have one or more of the following boolean attributes: o 'private' - if true, this specifies that the content is absent because it may never be published. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 22] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 o 'denied' - if true, this specifies that the content is absent because policy does not allow it to be given under the current level of access. If present with content, each of these element types MAY have one or more of the following boolean attributes: o 'doNotRedistribute' - if true, this specifies that the content is not to be redistributed. o 'specialAccess' - if true, this specifies that the content has been provided due to special access rights. These boolean attributes SHOULD be used in accordance with the level of access being granted the recepient of the data. For example, marking data as 'private' or 'denied' is to be expected if the user is anonymous or has some other low level of access that does not warrant viewing of that particular data. Likewise, data marked with 'doNotRedistribute' or 'specialAccess' is to be expected if the user is authenticated and has a high level of access. 4.2.2. Result An example of a result: Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 23] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 example.com example-com-1 The result represents an instance of a domain assignment. The children of the element are as follows: o - 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 1035 [9]. o - the name of the domain in nameprep form if applicable. See RFC 3491 [15]. o - a registry unique assigned identifier to a domain. o - MUST contain an entity reference to a referent of type (Section 4.2.3). The optional attribute 'lame' indicates if this nameserver is lame as it relates to this domain. Its value is specified by the "lameReasonType". See Section 4.5. o - MUST contain an entity reference to a referent of type (Section 4.2.3). Registered hosts are not considered name servers of the domain but merely hosts that have been registed as subordinated to the domain (e.g. host.example.com Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 24] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 in example.com). Therefore these entity references do not contain the 'lame' attribute. o - an element containing an entity reference to the registrant of this domain. The referent MUST be a (Section 4.2.4) result or an (Section 4.2.5.1) result. o The entity references found in the representativeEntityGroup (See Section 4.2.8). o - may contain at least one of the following elements of type 'domainStatusType' (see Section 4.2.1), but none of these elements may appear more than once. * - permanently inactive * - normal state * - registration assigned but delegation inactive * - dispute * - database purge pending * - change of authority pending * - on hold by registry * - on hold by registrar o - this element extends the enhanced status values in "baseEnhancedStatusValuesType" (see Section 4.2.10). It defines the following additional status values: * - available via DNS (either via delegation or direct publication) * - unavailable via DNS * - the domain has been found to be lame (see Section 4.5). This element is of "lameEnhancedStatusType". * - the domain is not lame (see Section 4.5). * - registrant assignment is in dispute Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 25] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 * - renewal of domain registration * - period at the creation or activation of this domain (see RFC 3915 [19]) * - period at the renewal of this domain (see RFC 3915 [19]) * - period at the automatic renewal of this domain (see RFC 3915 [19]) * - period at the transfer of this domain (see RFC 3915 [19]) * - period at the redemption of this domain (see RFC 3915 [19]) * - change to previous status of this domain Both the and values MAY appear in a result object. However, the use of sole use of the element is RECOMMENDED. o - contains an entity reference, the referent of which MUST be a (Section 4.2.2). o - an element containing an entity reference, the referent of which MUST be a (Section 4.2.2). The intention of this element is to point to the downstream registration reference. Therefore, if this is a result given back by a domain registry, it should point to the domain in the domain registrar or registrant service. o - contains an entity reference specifying the domain registry operator for this domain which MUST be a (Section 4.2.5.2). This element has an optional, boolean 'hosting' attribute. When the value of this attribute is positive, it indicates that the registry is responsible for authoratively answering DNS queries for this domain. o - contains an entity reference specifying the domain registrar operator for this domain which MUST be a (Section 4.2.5.2). This element has an optional, boolean 'hosting' attribute. When the value of this attribute is positive, it indicates that the registrar is responsible for authoratively answering DNS queries for this domain. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 26] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 o - contains an entity reference specifying the registration service provider for this domain which MUST be a (Section 4.2.5.2). This element has an optional, boolean 'hosting' attribute. When the value of this attribute is positive, it indicates that the registrar is responsible for authoratively answering DNS queries for this domain. o The elements found in the commonDateTimeGroup (See Section 4.2.9). o - an element containing the date and time of the initial delegation of this domain. o - an element containing the date and time of last renewal of this domain. o - an element containing the date and time of the expiration of this domain. o - specifies the last time a contact for the domain was added or removed. o - an element containing an entity reference. The referent MUST be a (Section 4.2.4) responsible for the last addition or removal of a contact for this domain. o - an element containing the date and time of the last time one of the nameservers was added or removed for the delegation of this domain. o - an element containing an entity reference. The referent MUST be a (Section 4.2.4) result and be responsible for the last addition or removal of a nameserver for this domain. o - an element containing the date and time of the last time this domain and its nameservers were checked for lameness. See Section 4.5. o - an element containing the date and time of the last time this domain and its nameservers were checked for lameness and were considered not lame. See Section 4.5. o - indicates the number of seconds after signature generation when a parent's signature on delegation signer information will expire. See [20]. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 27] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 o - this element contains the following child elements describing delegation signer data: * - key tag value as described in section 5.1.1 of [18]. * - algorithm value as described in section 5.1.2 of [18]. * - digest type values as described in section 5.1.3 of [18]. * - digest value as described in section 5.1.4 of [18]. * - describes the key data used as input in the delegation signer hash calculation. This element has the following child elements: + - flags field value as described in section 2.1.1 of [18]. + - protocol field value as described in section 2.1.2 of [18]. + - algorithm number field as described in section 2.1.3 of [18]. + - encoded public key field value as described in section 2.1.4 of [18]. o - an element containing an entity reference specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this domain. 4.2.3. Result An example of a result: nsol184 a.iana-servers.net 192.0.2.43 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 28] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 The element represents an instance of a host registration. The children of the element are as follows: o - a registry unique assigned identifier for the host. o - the fully qualified domain name of the host. The contents of this element are a domain name and MUST conform to RFC 1035 [9]. o - the content of which MUST conform to the a valid IP version 4 host address as specified by RFC 791 [8]. o - the content of which MUST conform to the a valid IP version 6 host address as specified by RFC 3513 [7]. o - an element containing an entity reference specifying a contact associated with this host. The referent MUST be (Section 4.2.4) results. o the elements from the commonDateTimeGroup (see Section 4.2.9). o - this element extends the enhanced status values in "baseEnhancedStatusValuesType" (see Section 4.2.10). It defines the following additional status values: * - this host has linkages to one or more domains. * - this host has been found to be lame (see Section 4.5). This element is of the "lameEnhancedStatusType". * - this host is not lame (see Section 4.5). o - an element containing an entity reference specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this host. 4.2.4. Result An example of a result: Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 29] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 dconrad IANA Manager Internet Assigned Numbers Authority res-dom@iana.org
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey CA 92092 US 310-823-9358 The element represents an instance of a contact registration. A contact is usually thought to be a specific person or set of persons with a specific role. Organizations SHOULD be represented with the result object. The children of the element are as follows: o - a registry unique assigned identifier for this contact. o - the name of the contact. o - a specification of the language code to use to localize the data in this result. o - contains one of the following child elements: , , , or . Each of these elements is a "contactTypeType" as defined in Section 4.2.1. Use of the result object is RECOMMENDED instead of a result object with a type indicating it is an organization. o - an element containing the organization name of the contact. Use of this element and the use of the result object to represent an organization is NOT RECOMMENDED. o The elements from the correspondenceDataGroup (see Section 4.2.7). o The elements from the representativeEntityGroup (see Section 4.2.8). o The elements from the commonDateTimeGroup (see Section 4.2.9). Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 30] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 o - an element containing an entity reference specifying equivalents of this contact that have been translated into other languages. The referent MUST be (Section 4.2.4) results. o - this element extends the enhanced status values in "baseEnhancedStatusValuesType" (see Section 4.2.10). It defines the following additional status values: * - this contact has linkages to one or more domains, hosts, or organizations. o - an element containing an entity reference specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this contact. 4.2.5. Organization Types This specification defines two types of organizations, results objects and result objects. They share a common basic structure but differ materially in that organizations are objects that can be registered in the registration system while registration authorities usually exist in the registration system via other means. This common defintion is called the "organizationBaseType". The child elements shared by both and are as follows: o - the name of the organization. o - an alternative name of the organization used for certain types of commerce. o - elements containing identifiers of the organization type used in civic and legal systems. Examples would be business category codes, tax identification numbers, etc. o the elements in the correspondenceDataGroup (see Section 4.2.7). o the elements in the representativeEntityGroup (see Section 4.2.8). o - an element containing an entity reference specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this organization type. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 31] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 4.2.5.1. An example of a result: Shoes and More, Inc. Mark Kosters smi The result object is derivative of the "organizationBaseType". In addition to the child elements defined in the base type, this result object has the following child elements: o - a registry unique assigned identifier for this organization. o - this element extends the enhanced status values in "baseEnhancedStatusValuesType" (see Section 4.2.10). It defines the following additional status values: * - this organization has linkages to one or more domains or contacts. 4.2.5.2. An example of a result: Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 32] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority The result object represents an entity capable of registering domains. Like the result object, is a derivative of the "organizationBaseType". In addition to the child elements defined in the base type, this result object has the following child elements: o - a registry unique assigned identifier for this registration authority. o The child element of contains an entity reference pointing to the entity "id" in the entity class "iris". The authority areas found in the referent MUST be domains for which a given registration authority has control. o - this element extends the enhanced status values in "baseEnhancedStatusValuesType" (see Section 4.2.10). It defines the following additional status values: * - this registration authority has linkages to one or more domains, contacts, organizations, or hosts. * - this registration authority is not allow to register entities into the registration system. * - this registration authority is enabled and may register entities into the registration system. o The registration authority type child elements, , , , and , determine the role in which this registration authority plays in the process of registering domains. The intent of this element is to explain the various roles a registration authority may have with regards to the authority areas pointed to by the element. A client MAY understand the relationship of a Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 33] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 registration authority with respect to a domain by the placement of the reference in the domain (e.g. , , or ). o The child elements each contain one domain name signifying the domains for which this registration authority may register sub-domains. 4.2.6. An example of a result: IDN-2005-10 ONLY-LATIN The result object represents a registration rule or policy of the registration system. It is not intended to provide procedural codes that may be executed by a client. Its purpose is to identify registration rules and procedures enabling clients that recognize the rule identifiers to act upon them in a predetermined way. This result object is composed of three elements, the first two being and . The content of these two elements contains a rule identifier, and each element has an 'authority' attribute containing the authority responsible for setting the rule or sub rule. is optional and there can be more than one. The final child element is containing an entity reference specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this registration rule. 4.2.7. Correspondence Data Group The correspondenceDataGroup of elements describe common information for correspondence with entities. This group is composed of the following elements: o - elements containing an e-mail address for this contact. o - elements containing a SIP address for this contact. o - elements containing children representing a postal address. has the following children: Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 34] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 *
- an element containing the street address for this contact. * - an element containing the city for this contact. * - an element containing the national region for this contact. * - an element containing the postal code for this contact. * - an element containing the country for this contact. This SHOULD be a 2-letter country code compliant with ISO 3166 [11]. o - elements containing a voice phone number for this contact. If it begins with a '+' (plus) character, it MUST be a number defined by E164 [13]. The format number defined in E164 [13] is RECOMMENDED. o - elements containing a facsimile phone number for this contact. If it begins with a '+' (plus) character, it MUST be a number defined by E164 [13]. The format number defined in E164 [13] is RECOMMENDED. 4.2.8. Representative Entity Group The representativeEntityGroup of elements describe common entity references to contacts and organizations used by results. Each of these elements represents an entity reference, and the referent of each MUST be a (Section 4.2.4) or (Section 4.2.5.1). o o o o o o o Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 35] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 o 4.2.9. Common Date Time Group The commonDateTimeGroup of elements represent date and time values found in many of the results. These elements are as follows: o - an element containing the date and time of the creation of the containing result object. o - an element containing the date and time of the last modification of the containing result object. o - an element containing the date and time of the last time the data for the containing result was verified by the responsible registration authority. 4.2.10. Common Enhanced Status Values Many of the result objects in this specification have a common set of status values. These are specified with a defined type of baseEnhancedStatusValuesType. This type definition has the following child elements, all of which are "enhancedStatusType" elements (see Section 4.2.1. o - the containing result object is considered compliant with the policy specified with the identifier in the element. o - the containing result object is considered not compliant with the policy specified with the identifier in the element. o - the containing result object is reserved and is not available for registration under normal registration procedures. o - specifies the creation status of the containing result object in the registration system. o - specifies the deletion status of the containing result object in the registration system. o - specifies the transfer status of the containing result object from one responsible or owning entity in the registration system to another. o - specifies the status of the containing result object as it relates to information in the containing result object being Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 36] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 modified or having the ability to be modified. o - specifies a registration system specific status of the containing result object. 4.3. Generic Code Derivatives 4.3.1. Servers MAY use the error code when a query must be narrowed to yield a result set acceptable to the policies of the server operator. 4.3.2. The queries , , and support optional language tags that allow a client to suggest to a server the languages in which to scope the queries. If a client passes to the server a language which the server does not support, the server MAY use this error code to indicate that one of the languages is not supported. This element contains child elements named . Each of these child elements specify a language not supported by the server. When a server returns this error, it MUST give the languages from the query which are not supported. 4.4. Support for An example of an query: The following types of entity classes are recognized by the query for this registry: o host-name - the fully qualified domain name of a nameserver. Yields a (Section 4.2.3) in the response. o host-handle - the registry unique identifier given a nameserver. Yields a (Section 4.2.3) in the response. o domain-name - the fully qualified name of a domain. This a domain name as specified by RFC 1035 [9]. Yields a (Section 4.2.2) in the response. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 37] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 o idn - the fully qualified name of a domain in nameprep form (see RFC 3491 [15]). Yields a (Section 4.2.2) in the response. o domain-handle - the registry unique identifier given a domain. Yields a (Section 4.2.2) in the response. o contact-handle - the registry unique identifier given a contact. Yields a (Section 4.2.4) in the response. o organization-handle - the registry unique identifier given an organization. Yields a (Section 4.2.5.1) in the response. o ipv4-address - the IPv4 address of a nameserver. Yields a (Section 4.2.3) in the response. o ipv6-address - the IPv6 address of a nameserver. Yields a (Section 4.2.3) in the response. o registration-authority - the name of a registration authority. Yields a (Section 4.2.5.2) in the response. o All names in these entity classes are case insensitive. 4.5. Lameness Some registries, registrars, or registration service providers may periodically check to see if a domain is "lame". In DNS terms, "lame" has a narrow definition as defined in [21], but the term is often used in a wider context. The explanation given here covers the wider context as is often found in registration systems and is not meant to redefine the stricter meaning in DNS as specified in [21]. A nameserver listed as authoritative for a domain can be considered lame for three reasons: 1. The nameserver is unresponsive. 2. The nameserver does not answer authoritatively for the domain. See [21]. 3. The address of the nameserver cannot be resolved, usually due to the domain in which it exists being lame itself. In a registration database, lameness may exist in three places: Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 38] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 1. A nameserver is lame if its address cannot be resolved or it does not answer queries. 2. The relationship between a domain and a nameserver could be lame if the nameserver does not authoritatively answer queries for the domain (i.e. it could answer authoritatively for other domains). 3. A domain is lame if all of its nameservers are lame. This specification enumerates the reasons for lameness with "lameReasonType". The enumerated values are: o queryTimeout - an answer was not received within a specified duration of time. o nonAuthoritativeAnswer - the name server queried did not return an authoritative answer. o unknownDomainName - the name server queried unknown the domain name. o unknownHostName - the name server's name is unknown. o queryRefused - the name server refused to answer the query. o connectionRefused - the name server refused to accept the query connection. o cannonicalName - the name server's name in a CNAME and not an A record. o soaVersionNotInSync - the SOA version is not in sync between this server and the delegated master. o dnsProtocolLevelError - the query resulted in a DNS protocol error o other - lame for an unexplaned reason A special status type also exists to describe lameness, the "lameEnhancedStatusType". This type extends the "enhancedStatusType" by adding an element of the "lameReasonType". See Section 4.2.1 for a description of the "enhancedStatusType". Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 39] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 5. Formal XML Syntax This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation suitable for automated validation of an XML instance when combined with the formal schema syntax of IRIS. Domain registry schema v2 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 40] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 41] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 42] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 43] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 46] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 49] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 50] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 51] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 52] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 54] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 55] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 58] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 59] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 60] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 61] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 64] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 65] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 66] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 69] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 70] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 71] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Figure 21: dreg.xsd Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 72] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 6. BEEP Transport Compliance IRIS allows several extensions of the core capabilities. This section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [6]. 6.1. Message Pattern This registry type uses the default message pattern as described in IRIS-BEEP [6]. 6.2. Server Authentication This registry type only uses the basic TLS server authentication method as described in IRIS-BEEP [6]. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 73] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 7. URI Resolution 7.1. Application Service Label The application service label associated with this registry type MUST be "DREG2". This is the abbreviated form of the URN for this registry type, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg2. 7.2. Bottom-Up Resolution The bottom-up alternative resolution method MUST be identified as 'bottom' in IRIS URI's. 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. 7.3. Top-Down Resolution The top-down alternative resolution method MUST be identified as 'top' in IRIS URI's. 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. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 74] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 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. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 75] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 8. Internationalization Considerations Implementers should be aware of considerations for internationalization in IRIS [5]. 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 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 ). Clients needing to localize the data tags in this protocol should take note that localization is only needed on the names of XML elements and attributes with the exception of elements containing date and time information. The schema for this registry has been designed so that clients need not interpret the content of elements or attributes for localization, other than those elements containing date and time information. Clients should also make use of the elements provided in many of the results. Results containing data that may be in Unicode are accompanied by these elements in order to aid better presentation of the data to the user. The "dateTimePrivacyType" element type contains the XML Schema [3] data type "dateTime". The contents of this element MUST be specified using the 'Z' indicator for Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 76] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 9. IANA Considerations 9.1. XML Namespace URN Registration This document makes use of a proposed XML namespace and schema registry specified in XML_URN [16]. Accordingly, the following registration information is provided for the IANA: o XML Schema URN/URI: * urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:dreg2 o Contact: * Andrew Newton * Frederico Neves o XML: * The XML Schema specified in Section 5 o XML Namespace URN/URI: * urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg2 o Contact: * Andrew Newton * Frederico Neves o XML: * The XML Schema specified in Section 5 9.2. S-NAPTR Registration The following S-NAPTR application service label will need to be registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in IRIS [5]: DREG2 9.3. BEEP Registration The following BEEP Profile URI is to be registeried with IANA, in addition to the registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [6]. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 77] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dreg2 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 78] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 10. Security Considerations This document lays out no new considerations for security precautions beyond that specified in IRIS [5]. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 79] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 11. References 11.1. Normative References [1] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0", W3C XML, February 1998, . [2] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML Namespaces, January 1999, . [3] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C XML Schema, October 2000, . [4] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C XML Schema, October 2000, . [5] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Internet Registry Information Service", draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-05 (work in progress), January 2004. [6] 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. [7] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. [8] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [9] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [10] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. [11] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the representation of names of countries, 3rd edition", ISO Standard 3166, August 1988. [12] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. [13] International Telecommunications Union, "The International Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 80] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-T Recommendation E.164, 1991. [14] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003. [15] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March 2003. [16] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-03 (work in progress), November 2001. [17] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: A Domain Registry (dreg) Type for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)", RFC 3982, January 2005. [18] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005. [19] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915, September 2004. [20] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 4310, December 2005. 11.2. Informative References [21] Austein, R. and J. Saperia, "DNS Resolver MIB Extensions", RFC 1612, May 1994. [22] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping", RFC 3731, March 2004. [23] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping", RFC 3732, March 2004. [24] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping", RFC 3733, March 2004. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 81] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Appendix A. Example Requests and Responses The examples in this section use the string "C:" to denote data sent by a client to a server and the string "S:" to denote data sent by a server to a client. A.1. Example 1 The following is an example of an entity lookup in a dreg2 registry for the domain-name of 'example.com'. The response shows the ability to specify data as being withheld because it is private. C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: example.com S: tcs-com-1 S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Figure 22: Example 1 A.2. Example 2 The following is an example of an entity lookup in a dreg2 registry for the contact-handle of 'mak21'. The response shows the ability to specify data as being withheld because it is private. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 83] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: mak21 S: S: S: Mark Kosters S: S: S: S: VeriSign, Inc. S: S: S: markk@verisignlabs.com S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Figure 23: Example 2 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 84] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 A.3. Example 3 The following is an example of a domain search based on a registrant's name beginning with the string 'The Cobbler Shoppe'. This example also shows the use of bags. C: C: C: C: C: C: C: com C: C: C: The Cobbler Shoppe C: C: C: registrant C: C: C: C: C: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: example.com S: S: S: S: S: Bill Eckels S: S: S: S: S: Mark Kosters S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: beb140 S: S: Bill Eckels S: S: en S: S: S: S: Bill sells shoes down by the sea shore. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 86] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 S: S: S: Rechnung verkauft Schuhe unten durch das Seeufer. S: S: S: S: S: The Cobbler Shoppe S: S: S: S:
S: 21 North Main Street S:
S: S: Britt S: S: S: IA S: S: S: 50423 S: S: S: US S: S: S: S: 515-843-3521 S: S: S: S: S: It is illegal to use information from this service S: for the purposes of sending unsolicited bulk email. S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAABIwAAAIEA0ddD+W3Agl0Lel98G1r77fZ S: c3nBl8CHdkmKuVGUy/ijmvdO5QxuSlU0R4BoCLZk/Sob22RApTn S: T+ROMbXFQBrxGH08daAOy98WqpfAutWJri61JLpubIbaqhGyB48 S: Qt69V6OhYfFsJjvoNEOh1k2dgzXhSlzP3OMVSKRlBzGcO8= Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 87] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 S: S: S: S: S: Figure 24: Example 3 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 88] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Appendix B. An Example Database Serialization The following is an example of serializing domain data. This example shows the serialization of a domain, a host, and a referral. example.com IANA Administrator nsol184 ns1.iana.org 192.0.2.1 Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 89] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 IANA Techie com Figure 25: dreg-serialization.xml Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 90] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Appendix C. Acknowledgements Many of the concepts concerning the use of SRV records for step-wise refinement towards finding authoritative servers and many of the details of result objects in this draft were originally created by Eric A. Hall in his memos regarding the use of LDAP to satisfy the CRISP requirements. These concepts have contributed significantly to the development of this protocol. David Blacka gave many technical contributions due to work on his IRIS implementation and experienced judgement. He also contributed many editorial clarifications. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 91] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Authors' Addresses Andrew L. Newton VeriSign, Inc. 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 USA Phone: +1 703 948 3382 Email: andy@hxr.us URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ Frederico A. C. Neves NIC.br / Registro.br Av. das Na��es Unidas, 11541, 7 S�o Paulo, SP 04578-000 BR Phone: +55 11 5509 3511 Email: fneves@registro.br URI: http://registro.br/ Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 92] Internet-Draft iris-dreg2 May 2006 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 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 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Newton & Neves Expires November 26, 2006 [Page 93]